Hi,
> I have probably did not say it explicitly, but the default topology would > use its own resources – and experience its own problems, strictly > orthogonal to whatever happens in the dedicated CS topology. > > IMHO and FWIW this could be treated as a possible approach for > implementing the (in)famous “network slicing”. > Isn't the default topo an underlay for any custom topology ? You seems to think that default topology can function "in parallel", but this is not how I understand it. > As for “circuit switching over connectionless paradigm” – well, TDM > circuit emulation has been standardized by the IETF years ago, has been > quite widely deployed, and, AFAIK, is still growing as more operators try > to scrap their SDH networks. > Yeh happened to be for a number of years on a customer side using such an "invention" and my resistance to the subject draft is coming from this (bad) experience. Sure it is cool for operators ... not so for customers. I even wrote a draft one time trying to detect the hidden problems by such innovations: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-turaga-mpls-test-labels-01.txt Thx, R. >
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
