The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2001-Apr> msg00524



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

Two signalling protocols (LDP & RSVP)

  • From: "Sanford, Bill" <bills@netplane.com>
  • Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 10:30:10 -0400
  • Cc: mpls@UU.NET

Mohit,

What document has path "reoptimization" in it? How are you defining it?

In 4.7.2. Format with resource affinities
(draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-lsp-tunnel-08.txt), doesn't it state that "A transit
router can reroute traffic for fast service restoration"? 

Bill

> 
> > 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.
> >>Mohit
> 
> >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.
> 
> CR-LDP supports path reoptimization which means that it has 
> the capability to
> repath loosely routed LSPs based on traffic pattern changes. 
> But RSVP-TE does
> not support the feature of path reoptimization.
> 
> Mohit
> 
> 
> 
>