Subject: RE: [pim] draft-wijnands-pim-proxy

From: "Spessard, Kirk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 08:51:07 -0600

Level 3 is selling MPLS services, i.e.  RFC2547, Martini, etc.  The
issue is that these customers are paying for premium services and have
voiced concerns that Internet issues could impact their services.
Granted if the MPLS core is properly designed this is a non-issue, and
yes we are educating our customers on this point.  But when you are
competing with traditional services, this is a competitive disadvantage.

Kirk  

-----Original Message-----
From: Pekka Savola [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 11:36 PM
To: Spessard, Kirk
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [pim] draft-wijnands-pim-proxy

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004, Spessard, Kirk wrote:
> Due to IPVPN customer requirements, Level 3 is actively pursuing an
MPLS
> BGP free core by end of 2005.  (Note: Some of our large customers
> perceive BGP and mBGP on our MPLS core as a security concern.)  For
this
> reason, Level 3 is very interested in this draft.

I'd be very interested if you could elaborate on these customers' 
perceived "BGP and MBGP in MPLS core .. security concerns".

Seems rather like that there needs to happen either protocol
development, different kind of deployment, or customer education.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

_______________________________________________
pim mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim