The MPLS WG Archive

["Don Fedyk" <dwfedyk@nortelnetworks.com>]

Title: RE: MPLSOAM BOF meeting draft minutes

Giles

Your definition of convergent is rather vague. Implementations
of Packet based MPLS I have seen have multiple paths for data
and control within a single LSP. (Slow path and fast path etc).
The assumption that these are these same has been proven wrong
even though we often generalize they share the same fate.

Don

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Giles Heron [mailto:giles@packetexchange.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 7:48 AM
> To: neil.2.harrison@bt.com
> Cc: mpls@UU.NET
> Subject: Re: MPLSOAM BOF meeting draft minutes
>
>
> neil.2.harrison@bt.com wrote:
> [snip]
> > If one agrees to the fact that these (OAM functions) are
> > present/valid/required in SDH etc and hence in GMPLS, then
> one should not
> > argue that they don't apply to other CO technologies.  An
> ER/signalled p2p
> > LSP is a trail, in G.805 parlance, irrespective of whether
> wants to try and
> > camouflage this fact or not...and so the same principles
> apply.  You can't
> > argue it both ways IMO.
> > <snipped to end>
>
> I'm not sure I agree with this conclusion.
>
> isn't one key difference between SDH/GMPLS etc. and MPLS the fact that
> for an MPLS LSP the control plane is convergent with the data plane?
> Sure for TE LSPs the LSP path isn't generally convergent with the IGP,
> but it is convergent with the RSVP-TE control traffic.
>
> Giles
>
> --
> =================================================================
> Giles Heron    Principal Network Architect    PacketExchange Ltd.
> ph: +44 7880 506185              "if you build it they will yawn"
> =================================================================
>