The MPLS WG Archive

[Bala Rajagopalan <BRaja@tellium.com>]

The problem (at least the way I see it) is that both
protocols satisfy the requirements and neither
OIF nor ITU-T has tried to pick one (and only one) protocol.
In effect, these organizations (IMO) have taken the
path of least resistance, not getting into the messy
issue of selecting "a" protocol. And since the work
is usually done by different groups of people, this
choice of allowing everything is easy, regardless
of what gets finally implemented.


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: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 1:29 AM
> To: Bala Rajagopalan
> Cc: Loa Andersson; mpls@UU.NET
> Subject: Re: initiating a discussion on mpls singaling protocols
> 
> 
> So, In effect you are saying that since OIF and ITU-T are not 
> able to decide
> which one to pick (based on their requirements), it is 
> benefecial for them
> that IETF decide which one they want to promote and others 
> will follow! I
> thought ITU-T and OIF work independently and they have their 
> own parameters
> to choose the technological alternative.
> 
> Bala Rajagopalan wrote:
> 
> > 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
> > >
>