The MPLS WG Archive

[Eric Osborne <eosborne@cisco.com>]

On Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 12:31:39PM +0200, Loa Andersson wrote:
> 
> Eric,
> 
> I pointed this out in a "off the list" mail to Gang Luo, you
> could even have C and D over the same interface on shared 
> media. It is technical possible.
> 
> This said an operator that has e.g. RSVP-TE and LDP in the
> network would hardly introduce equipment that requires introducing
> another signalling protcol and won't give you any major 
> advantages.
> In the case below, running A,B and D on RSVP-TE, C would have 
> to stay out of my network. Permanetly. 
> I think Kireetis point is valid. Off load complexity when possible.

Sure.  I agree completely.  I think we're still not sure whether the
original question about using RSVP and LDP at the same time, or RSVP
and CR-LDP.  The former makes more sense as a requirement; the latter, 
although maybe not the least complex way to do things, is certainly
possible.



eric

> 
> /Loa
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Eric Osborne <eosborne@cisco.com>
> Date: Friday, April 27, 2001 10:47 pm
> Subject: Re: Two signalling protocols (LDP & RSVP)
> 
> > On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 09:13:06AM -0700, Kireeti Kompella wrote:
> > > > Do you think the original question used "LDP" to mean "CR-LDP"?
> > > 
> > > I don't think so, but the previous poster switched subjects.  I
> > > agree completely, it makes perfect sense to run LDP and RSVP-TE
> > > on the same interfaces (depending on your applications), whereas
> > > running RSVP-TE and CR-LDP in the same network, let alone on the
> > > same interfaces, seems to be inviting gratuitous complexity.
> > 
> > 
> > Except in multi-vendor networks, where one vendor does RSVP and the
> > other does CR-LDP:
> > 
> > 
> >      C
> >     /
> > A---B 
> >     \
> >      D
> > 
> > If C does only CR-LDP and D does only RSVP, then A may need to do 
> > both 
> > RSVP and CR-LDP on the A<->B link.  This would not be the case if B
> > instead did some sort of RSVP<->CR-LDP translation, however.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > eric
> > 
> >