The MPLS WG Archive

[Loa Andersson <loa.andersson@utfors.se>]

All,

Philips assumption is correct!

/Loa

> Philip Matthews wrote:
> 
> My assumption is that Loa and Bob are talking about RFC3036,
> which does not mention any sort of LDP resiliency scheme.
> 
> The proposals for LDP Fault Tolerance and LDP Graceful Restart
> are not part of RFC3036 and would advance separately. None of
> these proposals are even at proposed standard status yet.
> 
> - Philip
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: neil.2.harrison@bt.com [mailto:neil.2.harrison@bt.com]
> > Sent: 20-Dec-01 09:25
> > To: loa.andersson@utfors.se; mpls@UU.NET; pmatthews@hyperchip.com
> > Cc: swallow@cisco.com; sob@harvard.edu; bwijnen@lucent.com;
> > rhthomas@cisco.com
> > Subject: RE: Initiating the process to take LPD to draft standard
> >
> >
> > Loa,
> >
> > How does this square with the recent mail posting on LDP
> > resiliency from
> > Philip Matthews...see attached?
> >
> > I am thinking specifically about the interoperability combinations
> > mentioned....seems like some more need adding.
> >
> > regards, Neil
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Loa Andersson [mailto:loa.andersson@utfors.se]
> > > Sent: 20 December 2001 13:05
> > > To: mpls@UU.NET
> > > Cc: George Swallow; sob@harvard.edu; bwijnen@lucent.com; Bob
> > > Thomas; Loa
> > > Andersson
> > > Subject: Initiating the process to take LPD to draft standard
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > All,
> > >
> > > We have been notified by the AD's that it is time to advance LDP
> > > (RFC3036) from proposed standard to draft standard.
> > >
> > > A formal requirement on an IETF protocol to advance to
> > draft standard
> > > is that there be at least two interoperable implementations of the
> 
> > > specification.
> > >
> > > This is a request for information about LDP implementations.
> Please
> > > send the information to:
> > >
> > >     Bob Thomas <rhthomas@cisco.com>
> > >     Loa Andersson <loa.andersson@utfors.se>
> > >
> > > RFC3036 defines several modes of label distribution and allows an
> > > implementation to support one or more of the modes. In addition,
> > > RFC3036 specifies optional behavior. Therefore we need information
> 
> > > about the label distribution modes and optional behavior
> > > supported by each implementation.
> > >
> > > We ask that the information supplied include which of the
> following
> > > label distribution modes are supported:
> > >
> > >        Advertisement             Retention      Control
> > >
> > >     1. Downstream Unsolicited    Ordered        Liberal
> > >     2. Downstream Unsolicited    Ordered        Conservative
> > >     3. Downstream Unsolicited    Independent    Liberal
> > >     4. Downstream Unsolicited    Independent    Conservative
> > >
> > >     5. Downstream on Demand      Ordered        Liberal
> > >     6. Downstream on Demand      Ordered        Conservative
> > >     7. Downstream on Demand      Independent    Liberal
> > >     8. Downstream on Demand      Independent    Conservative
> > >
> > > as well as optional features, such as loop detection, optional
> > > TLVs, etc., supported by the implementation.  Also, please feel
> free
> > > to include any additional material believed to be relevant.
> > >
> > > We also need information on interoperability testing and
> deployment
> > > status in order to address the requirement of "two independent and
> 
> > > interoperable implementations".
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Bob and Loa
> > >
> >
> >

-- 
Loa Andersson
Chief Architect,
Utfors Research, Architecture and Future Lab (URAX)
Utfors AB
Råsundavägen 12
Box 525, 169 29 Solna
Office          +46 8 5270 2000
Office direct   +46 8 5270 5038
Mobile          +46 70 848 5038
Email           loa.andersson@utfors.se
WWW             www.utfors.se