Stephen,

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Stephen Munguti <kamitu.sm@gmail.com> wrote:

Also P routers are for the sake of the ISP sanity. But the fact that you are asking why we need them(are the customers paying for them) further proves my point, our ISPs are just not ready to carry some services over mpls. We should stick to our current transmission based solutions.

Actually you are mistaken. This is where we tend to fail as engineers. Certain feature sets are great. If they weren't the IETF Routing Area Working Group would have far less activity than it does today. But in our market these feature sets must have use cases else how do you justify the business case ?. So in addition to being an engineer, you must understand the business case for these features.

Finally the MPLS featurs outlined above requires a certain level of expertise in all providers because of how they are interlinked. I doubt that's gonna happen.

I have an old school mentality where i believe that one can teach themselves just about anything, as long as they have the time, patience, interest and passion. If they cannot learn on their own, then vendors have this service where you can pay for service to be implemented and they support it too. However, the later does require a business case

That's my opinion, nobody has to listen to it.

Look, its a discussion and it is worth learning and knowing what folk think about the new technologies. More specifically am very curious about practical use case over vendor marketing in our region. To draw a correlation to this discussion, you might see similarities to the whole issue of IPv6 uptake. Our region is far behind most others and in my view this is largely because of business case vs. practical use case justifications.

Regards,

Michuki.