<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META content="MSHTML 5.00.2919.6307" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>to add to his point,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>i would really love a "document" which poses
responses to the "jitter" problem for MPLS...or benchmarks on the
same..</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>thats the only thing that can limit MPLS from sweeping
over circuit switch technologies today.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>as we all know, MPLS strives to achieve the performance of
a circuit switched network over a packet switched network...</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>rgds</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Alok</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A href="mailto:jshen_cad@yahoo.com.cn" title=jshen_cad@yahoo.com.cn>Jing
Shen</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A href="mailto:salamat@rp.lip6.fr"
title=salamat@rp.lip6.fr>Kavé Salamatian</A> ; <A
href="mailto:end2end-interest@postel.org"
title=end2end-interest@postel.org>end2end-interest@postel.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A href="mailto:ippm@advanced.org"
title=ippm@advanced.org>ippm@advanced.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, October 04, 2002 2:23
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> RE: [ippm] [e2e] Mathematical
analysis of e2e lable switching path</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<P>Thanks for all those response.
<P>To my limited knowledge on MPLS implementation, many Telecommunication
Cooperation
<P>have adopted MPLS in their service network, such as UUnet, AT&T.
In China, ChinaTelecom has built up
<P>a experimental MPLS backbone accross multiple provinces, and China Unicom
also built up a backbone alike.
<P>In deed, it seems MPLS network is not put directly to commercial usage in
China but some of stuff in ChinaTelecom
<P>told me that they do care the VPN capacity, TE capacity and high
performance promised by MPLS. The problem is
<P>the operators seem could not catch up with the complex configuration
so fast. So, I don't understand
<P>why MPLS will not be used in large scale networks?
<P>To the performance difference between MPLS network and IP network, I
totally agree with you IP router have achieve
<P>the same performance with MPLS. But, to our experiments with comparation
between LSP and IP routing , there do exist
<P>some difference between LSP and IP routing. We've built a very small
testbed to compare difference between LSP& IP routing,
<P>and we found that LSP shows lower jitter and packet loss rate under
resource reservation scheme and best-effort service under low
<P>load. This is the reason why I asked the question.
<P>Best regards
<P>
<P> <B>Kav¨¦ Salamatian <salamat@rp.lip6.fr></B> µÄÕýÎÄ£º
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Dear
Shen,<BR><BR>first of all I should mention that MPLS deployment is far from
being done (I<BR>don't think that it has been deployed even in a large
network operator) and<BR>I largely suspect that it will never be deployed in
a large scale to be the<BR>primary backbone technology !!!!<BR><BR>From the
point of view of measurement, LSP networks should not have too
much<BR>difference from traditional IP networks as nowadays IP routing
performance<BR>is getting very close to Label switching performance, meaning
that the<BR>delay of crossing an LSP network should not be significantly
larger than an<BR>IP network. The difference may come from a simpler traffic
engineering in<BR>MPLS. Meaning that we should evaluate the effect of
traffic engineeringon<BR>performance, not the particuliar behaviour of MPLS
network.<BR><BR>Bests<BR><BR>Kv<BR>-----Message d'origine-----<BR>De?:
ippm-admin@advance! d.org [mailto:ippm-admin@advanced.org]De la part
de<BR>Shen Jing<BR>Envoy¨¦?: dimanche 29 septembre 2002 04:28<BR>¨¤?:
end2end-interest@postel.org<BR>Cc?: ippm@advanced.org<BR>Objet?: [ippm]
[e2e] Mathematical analysis of e2e lable switching path<BR><BR><BR>Hi
there,<BR><BR>I've some question on e2e performance analysis of<BR>label
switching path.<BR><BR>There has been many research on e2e
performance<BR>analysis for IP routing. Nearly all of them take the<BR>model
of "network of queue", and under assumpiton of<BR>Possion Arrival,
exponential flow size etc. To my<BR>limited knowledge, this is not to the
state of<BR>Internet which experiences LRD. On the other hand,<BR>different
router archtecture must have different<BR>effect on transmission
performance.<BR>As MPLS proceeds to be the primary backbone<BR>technology, I
think there must be something new<BR>introduced into the e2e performance in
internet.<BR><BR>So, I want to know, whether there is some work
with<BR>methematical! modeling of LSP networks? and, are there<BR>anyone
would do me a favor to recommend some refrence<BR>book, web page, research
paper or the like ?<BR><BR>Thank you very much.<BR><BR>Best
regards<BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Jing Shen<BR><BR>State Key Lab of
CAD&CG<BR>ZheJiang University(YuQuan)<BR>HangZhou, ZheJiang Province
310027<BR>P.R.China
<P><BR>
<HR SIZE=1>
<B>Do You Yahoo!?</B><BR><A
href="http://rd.yahoo.com/mail_cn/tag/?http://cn.ent.yahoo.com/star/midautumn/index.html">"·¢¶ÌÐÅÓ®ÊÖ»ú,¿ìÀ´²Î¼ÓÑÅ»¢¾ÞÐÇÐã!"</A></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>