The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2001-Apr> msg00517



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]  
  [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index]

Two signalling protocols (LDP & RSVP)

  • From: "Gang Luo" <gluo@nortelnetworks.com>
  • Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 08:56:26 -0400
  • Cc: mpls@UU.NET
  • X-Orig: <gluo@americasm01.nt.com>

Title: RE: Two signalling protocols (LDP & RSVP)

Hi Kireeti,

I agree with you. If some feature is required, but missing,
it looks that we just build the feature as an option into the existing protocol.

That will be less implementation overhead than supporting two protocols.

Best regards.
Gang.



-----Original Message-----
From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:kireeti@juniper.net]
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 5:57 AM
To: eosborne@cisco.com; mgoel@hss.hns.com
Cc: Luo, Gang [SKY:1H91:EXCH]; mpls@UU.NET
Subject: Re: Two signalling protocols (LDP & RSVP)


> Although both CR-LDP and RSVP-TE provides similar functionalities, but one
> significant reason why we would like to run both the protocols on the same
> interface can be that TE-RSVP supports IP record route option using its record
> route objects.But CR-LDP doesn't support IP record route option.

The above seems to be an excellent argument for running RSVP-TE.
It is not (as it stands) a justification for running *both* RSVP
and CR-LDP.

Kireeti.