The MPLS WG Archive

[Giles Heron <giles@packetexchange.net>]

nice summary.

I'd agree that given the lack of market acceptance of CR-LDP it would be
good to focus effort on RSVP-TE from here on in.  I can't see the value
in spending time writing drafts that will never be deployed - let alone
implementing those drafts with no SP requirement to do so.

Giles

On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 16:10, Lou Berger wrote:
> 
> Heinrich,
> 
> This is not really correct.  I (and others) have spent quite a bit of time 
> to ensure that functionality added to one protocol is added to the 
> other.  The reason for this has been so that the technology can advance 
> without having to get mired down in the protocol wars that we went through 
> in the early days of MPLS.
> 
> At this point, I think both protocols deliver equivalent 
> functionality.  Both protocols have their plusses and minuses that can be 
> argued for as long as folks have energy.  But IMO, we're at the point where 
> differences in robustness and scalability are now in the domain of the 
> quality of implementation and not resulting of the base protocol.
> 
> Going forward, I think that having just one protocol to deliver a piece of 
> functionality so that we don't have to duplicate work is goodness.  Based 
> on the GMPLS implementation survey, I think that GMPLS-CR-LDP should move 
> forward as informational.  I think that reclassifying CR-LDP to 
> informational (or historic, if that's the right procedural thing) also 
> makes sense based on market acceptance.
> 
> Lou
> 
> At 11:12 AM 7/23/2002, Hummel Heinrich wrote:
> >Well spoken.
> >Additionally, all those who do not care for CR-LDP have hardly contributed 
> >in the past nor will they contribute
> >in the future to extend routing protocols for the sake of CR-LDP. This 
> >sweat is up to the CR-LDP supporters.
> >It is not honest to complain about the burden carried by the others.
> >Heinrich
> >
> >-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> >Von: avri [mailto:avri@sm.luth.se]
> >Gesendet: Dienstag, 23. Juli 2002 15:26
> >Cc: MPLS wg
> >Betreff: Re: initiating a discussion on mpls singaling protocols
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >This seems to me a very strange proposal.  And in fact seems to be
> >a perversion of the IETF standards process as i understand it.
> >
> >If things are as argued, then RSVP-TE will progress to draft standard
> >and then to standard, while CR-LDP remains a proposed standard.  If
> >it languishes long enough in the proposed state, without significant
> >deployment or utility, then it would seem appropriate to transition it
> >to historic at some point in the future.
> >
> >Taking it to informational at this point seems a fairly blatant political
> >move without technical merit.  At best it is an administrative sleight
> >of hand that could strange repercussions as a precedent.  Is the IETF
> >going to embark next on an effort to define all protocol duplication
> >out of existence by voting on which alternative to make informational?
> >
> >I would suggest (as voting is not something I thought the IETF did) that
> >both protocols remain as ps. If CR-LDP withers on the vine because it has
> >no utility, so be it.  Voting to change its status seems inappropriate to
> >me.
> >
> >a.
> 
> 
-- 
=================================================================
Giles Heron    Principal Network Architect    PacketExchange Ltd.
ph: +44 7880 506185              "if you build it they will yawn"
=================================================================