RE: Single vs many solution(s) (LONG reply)

> From: Ross Callon [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 1:30 PM
> Subject: RE: Single vs many solution(s) (LONG reply)

> >I don't think the IETF is making business decisions. Vendors 
> are free to develop proprietary solutions and service 
> providers are free to deploy them. However, a standards body 
> should develop one solution as THE standard.
> >
> >...
> >Peter
> 
> This is ignoring 17 years of IETF experience, and more than 
> 20 years of 
> standards experience. The reality is that neither the IETF 
> nor any other 
> standards body is good at choosing between major approaches. When 
> we have tried to do this (or when any other standards group has tried
> this) we have failed more often than succeeded. Where we have let more
> than one major approach be progressed, we have succeeded most of the
> time (although usually most of the approaches eventually go away). 
> 

Ross,

I think there is a difference between new, unproven technologies - like IP routing protocols in the eigthies and the various wireless protocols more recently - and more mature technologies.  

SONET, ATM, GR-303 etc. were based on experiences with earlier technologies and for all intents and purposes, they have led to a clear set of standards that have been adopted widely. I don't know why you suggest that in general standards groups fail to advance single solutions.

I maintain that having multiple solutions for the same problem comes at great cost to the industry. Developing multiple routing protocols may have been unavoidable, but the fact that every router now has to support both IS-IS and OSPF is inefficient from multiple perspectives.

I think that the issues that are being discussed in the PPVPN WG (e.g. discovery and signaling)are not new. There are several existing protocols that can do the trick and the question is which ones are best suited to be used in L2 VPNs. In this particular case, I think that advancing multiple solutions will have more negative than positive consequences.

In summary, I stick with my original point (but with different capitalization): a standards body SHOULD develop one solution as the standard.

Peter



< snipped >

> Making decisions like this is just something that a standards 
> body is not capable of doing well. 
> 
> Ross 
>