The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2001-Apr> msg00522



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

Two signalling protocols (LDP & RSVP)

  • From: Ajay Simha <asimha@cisco.com>
  • Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 10:09:59 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
  • cc: <eosborne@cisco.com>, <mgoel@hss.hns.com>, <gluo@nortelnetworks.com>, <mpls@UU.NET>
  • X-X-Sender: asimha@uzura.cisco.com

On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Kireeti Kompella wrote:

> > 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,

Do you think the original question used "LDP" to mean "CR-LDP"?  I just
assumed they were talking about RFC3036.

It would make more sense for folks to have LDP and RSVP on the same
interface but may not make much sense to have CR-LDP and RSVP on the same
interface.

-ajay
 >
> Kireeti.
>

-- 
Ajay Simha
MPLS Deployment Engineer
IOS Technology Division
(919) 392-3141

"Study as if you were to live forever
 Live as if you were to die tomorrow"

 - Mahatma Gandhi