The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2002-Jul> msg00221



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]  
  [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index]

initiating a discussion on mpls singaling protocols

  • From: "Black, Stephen" <spblack@sandia.gov>
  • Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 11:34:17 -0600
  • X-Filter-Version: 1.8 (sass2426)
  • X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by cell.onecall.net id g6JHX6315965
  • X-Server-Uuid: 95b8ca9b-fe4b-44f7-8977-a6cb2d3025ff
  • X-WSS-ID: 112693662013638-01-01

I feel this would be the best approach.

Stephen Black
-----------------------------
Sandia National Laboratories
Networked Sys Surv & Assurance 
email: spblack@sandia.gov


-----Original Message-----
From: Loa Andersson [mailto:loa.andersson@utfors.se]
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 5:42 AM
To: MPLS wg
Cc: George Swallow; scott Giles; Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
Subject: initiating a discussion on mpls singaling protocols


All,

at the mpls wg meeting at the 54th IETF in Yokohama the issue of having
two functional similar (not to say overlapping) protocols addressing
the same functional space, as rsvp-te and cr-ldp were brought up.

The background is that when the signaling protocol for mpls traffic
engineering and setting up explicit / constraint based routes were
designed, there were two different approaches. One  based on rsvp and
the other on ldp. It was not at that time possible to resolve the
differences between the two approaches and this protocol duplication
as been reflected in creation of sometimes functional duplicate
specifications.

Since then both protocols has been progressed to proposed standard
and implemented.

However, as has been shown in the survey on signaling protocols for
GMPLS the implementations of rsvp-te far out number the cr-ldp
implementations. As there are issues with having two similar standards
(potentially diverging), and it generates duplicate work in several
ietf working groups, the question was asked whether we should make
cr-ldp informational (which still make it available and possible to
work with) and progress only rsvp-te on the standards track.

At the meeting there were a wide spread support for this idea, but
it was ruled that it was premature to call wg consensus on this at the
meeting and that we wanted to take the discussion on the mpls mailing
list.

This mail is to initiate this discussion. Please keep the discussion
on the mpls list, do not cross post other lists. A separate mail to
the ccamp, pwe3 and ppvpn has been sent to inform those wg's of this
discussion.

/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