The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2002-Jul> msg00334



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

AW: initiating a discussion on mpls singaling protocols

  • From: Hummel Heinrich <Heinrich.Hummel@icn.siemens.de>
  • Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 12:16:14 +0200
  • X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by cell.onecall.net id g6OADg325498

I know. But LDP does. It takes a little bit from LDP, and a little bit from CR-LDP.

But of course, I acknowledge, that both could be taken and combined, even if CR-LDP becomes informational.
Heinrich

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: David Charlap [mailto:david.charlap@marconi.com]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 23. Juli 2002 18:46
An: IETF MPLS List
Betreff: Re: AW: initiating a discussion on mpls singaling protocols


Hummel Heinrich wrote:
> 
> But let me repeat my technical point:
> Building hierarchical mp2p LSPs, from the egress towards a set of ingress nodes, i.e.
> building a sink tree out of LSPs. 
> Here downstream unsolicited mode is appropriate. So we need LDP. But because existing LSPs have to be concatenated
> (by label switching) we need their LSP-IDs. And this is provided by CR-LDP.
> 
> It takes a lot more to create RSVP-TE Downstream Unsolicited mode.

I think you are misunderstanding CR-LDP.  It doesn't support downstream 
unsolicited mode either.

-- David