The MPLS WG Archive

[satish dattatri <satish_dattatri@yahoo.com>]

Art,
Both ISIS-TE and OSPF-TE are deployed today.
I don't think the same reduction magic works for the
IGPs ;-)
Satish

--- Art King <art@frost-king.com> wrote:
> Greetings,
> 
> I hope this is the right group to address this inquiry to.
> 
> I like the idea that two competing (approximately)
> signaling protocols are being reduced to one.
> 
> Does this imply or is there a move to eliminate one or the
> other of the route distribution protocols (OSPF-TE and
> ISIS-TE) to further simply implementation and interop?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Art
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Meyer" <dmm@sprint.net>
> To: "Loa Andersson" <loa.andersson@utfors.se>
> Cc: "mpls wg" <mpls@UU.NET>; "Scott Bradner"
> <sob@harvard.edu>; "George
> Swallow" <swallow@cisco.com>; "Bert Wijnen"
> <bwijnen@lucent.com>
> Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 9:16 AM
> Subject: Re: a step towards consensus on mpls signaling
> protocol
> 
> 
> > Again, my concern is that is if it is left as proposed it
> will
> > wind up on an RFP somewhere, and folks will be forced to
> > implement it in order to respond. It's already happened.
> >
> > Dave
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 23, 2002 at 08:14:16AM +0200, Loa Andersson
> wrote:
> > >> David,
> > >>
> > >> the main argument not to make historic has been that
> there are
> > >> organizations  outside the IETF that reference the
> cr-ldp spec.
> > >> Re-classifying it would cause problems for those
> organizations.
> > >> By telling them that it is our intention not to
> further progress
> > >> the cr-ldp, we given them time to revisit this issue
> and take the
> > >> actions they need.
> > >>
> > >> /Loa
> > >>
> > >> David Meyer wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >>>  - There is a clear majority for discontinuing
> work on CR-LDP.
> > >> >>>    However, there is no IETF process to
> "de-standardize" an
> existing
> > >> >>>    proposed standard that would apply in this
> situation. Thus
> > >> >>>    CR-LDP will remain a proposed standard.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >
> > >> > Send it to historic, a la RFC 3166/3167, or someone
> will make me
> > >> > implement it.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >>>To this end:
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>  - Existing WG drafts related to or
> updating/changing CR-LDP will
> > >> >>>    be progressed according to normal procedures.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>  - the Working Group will take on no new WG
> documents related to
> > >> >>>    CR-LDP.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>  - A message will be sent to the relevant
> standards organizations
> > >> >>>    notifying them of this change of focus on MPLS
> signaling
> protocols.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >
> > >> > Again, can we send it to historic or is there some
> procedural
> > >> > (or other reason) not to do this?
> > >> >
> > >> > Dave
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >>      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
> > >>
> >
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com