The MPLS WG Archive

[Shahram Davari <Shahram_Davari@pmc-sierra.com>]

Hi Anoop,

In the second option, the LSRs recieve only labeled packets. This could potentially reduce hardware requirement.

Yours,
-Shahram

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anoop Ghanwani [mailto:anoop@cosinecom.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 26, 2001 4:21 PM
> To: Shahram Davari; 'mpls@uu.net'
> Subject: RE: Explicit null label ?
> 
> 
> 
> Is there any reason why would you even consider the second 
> option?
> 
> -Anoop
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Shahram Davari [mailto:Shahram_Davari@pmc-sierra.com]
> > Sent: Monday, March 26, 2001 11:43 AM
> > To: 'mpls@uu.net'
> > Subject: Explicit null label ?
> > Importance: Low
> > 
> > 
> > Hi All,
> > 
> > In an MPLS network that supports TE, the constraint-based 
> > routing is done via CR-LDP or RSVP-TE signaling. My question 
> > is which one of the following methods have people adapted or 
> > is envisioned to be superior:
> > 
> > 1) CR-LDP/RSV-TE signaling be done using unlabeled IP packets.
> > 2) CR-LDP/RSVP-TE signaling be done using MPLS labeled packet 
> > with label=0 (explicit null label).
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Shahram Davari
> > Systems Engineer
> > Product Research Group
> > PMC-Sierra, Inc. (Ottawa)
> > Phone: (613) 271-4018
> > Fax:    (613) 271-7007
> >  <<Shahram Davari.vcf>> 
> > 
>