The MPLS WG Archive

[Bala Rajagopalan <BRaja@tellium.com>]

In response to the comment on OIF tracking CR-LDP:

Life would be simplified for OIF and ITU-T if
there were only a single standard signaling protocol.
But because there are two IETF protocols, the rest of the 
world has to track the two (in addition to other
non-IETF protocols). 


Bala Rajagopalan
Tellium, Inc.
2 Crescent Place
P.O. Box 901
Oceanport, NJ 07757-0901
Tel: (732) 923-4237
Fax: (732) 923-9804
Email: braja@tellium.com 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Soumen Sarkar [mailto:soumen@sasken.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2002 3:27 AM
> To: Loa Andersson; mpls@UU.NET
> Subject: Re: initiating a discussion on mpls singaling protocols
> 
> 
> Loa,
> The response so far heavily indicated for RSVP-TE ( obviously 
> not because of the
> merits of RSVP-TE over LDP-CR ). If one has to accept the 
> basic ground-rule, which is,
> how many major players are pushing for RSVP-TE, one would 
> blindly vote for RSVP-TE.
>         The more esoteric view, which is, single signaling 
> protocol would help
> everyone to concentrate better in addressing unresolved  
> problems in MPLS, is also
> appreciably reasonable to accept.
> But looking from holistic perspective, is it not too 
> premature at this time to
> conclude on this issue unilaterally (even if there is 3/4 
> majority in favour if it )
> when this particular issue affects other standard bodies too 
> ? We know for sure, OIF
> is still tracking LDP-CR as an alternative signaling protocol 
> for optical control
> plane. Are we not pushing something without even considering 
> future implication of it
> ? One might say, we are not stopping anyone to use LDP-CR as 
> such. But none would
> disagree that making IETF take a stand itself is deterrant 
> enough and if not that
> much, it is bound to create conflict of interest between IETF 
> and others.
>   Are we really ready for this ? IETF traditionally has been 
> more a forum for vouching
> technical solutions, not imposing it. Are we deviating from 
> that path with full
> understanding ?
> -best regards,
> Soumen
> 
> Loa Andersson wrote:
> 
> > Heinrich,
> >
> > in my opinion the question is very clearly stated - is 
> there support for
> > us (the ietf) to move the cr-ldp from standard track to 
> informational.
> > We're "speaking for the ietf", it is more a matter of what we say ;)
> >
> > All,
> >
> > As usual we are trying to reach a rough consensus. Everyone 
> (i.e. the
> > mpls wg) can help create this consensus by answering the question
> > above.
> >
> > Especially it will be helpful if you were involved in specifying the
> > mpls protocols, have implemented or deployed (SP) those 
> protocols, and
> > take the time to respond.
> >
> > I will be ready to give the first extensive tally mid this week.
> > Currently the count is
> > yes: 30 no: 7,
> > if you normalize those e.g. by counting each company once it is
> > yes: 21 no: 4
> >
> > Disclaimer: Given that I've managed to decipher the 
> sometimes cryptic
> > mails correctly :o)
> >
> > /Loa
> >
> > Hummel Heinrich wrote:
> >
> > >  I think, the IETF can only speak for itself. There may 
> be other standardization
> >
> > >bodies (ITU-T, MPLS Forum) which may fill
> > > the gap.
> > >
> > > Heinrich Hummel
> > > Siemens AG
> > >
> >
> > --
> >      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
>