The MPLS WG Archive

["Bisewski, Radoslaw" <Radoslaw.Bisewski@intel.com>]

There is at least one additional advantage of the CR-LDP over the RSVP-TE:
CR-LDP is defined as an extensions to the MPLS LDP protocol, while RSVP-TE
has nothing in common with MPLS LDP. It is much easier  to implement MPLS
LDP with CR-LDP extensions than to implement two distinct protocols MPLS LDP
and RSVP-TE.

Regards
Radek 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hummel Heinrich [mailto:Heinrich.Hummel@icn.siemens.de]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 12:16 PM
> To: 'David Charlap'; IETF MPLS List
> Subject: AW: initiating a discussion on mpls singaling protocols
> 
> 
> 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
>