The MPLS WG Archive[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index] initiating a discussion on mpls singaling protocols
Going back to the question of making CR-LDP informational RFC. First, I stronlgy support the thought that ,the Industry should evolve to One Signaling protocol. At this economy it is costly to develop two competing protocols. Also, extending the protcols to do other applicatons will also double the work load on research and implementation. Having multiple protocols to do single Application will lead us into the same problem of OSPF or ISIS. Now that we are in that trap, that every extension we do, we need to do both IGPs. I would like to say, yeah RSVP-TE is the way adn CR-LDP could be informational RFC. Being said that, there is lots of work going of L2 Transportation over MPLS, using LDP. Well, even though I am not for that approach of using RSVP-TE and LDP ( two big protocols ??) for L2 transport, we need to see where that goes.. Thanks Vasu Vasu Jothilingam Lucent Technologies 1 Robbins Rd Westford, MA-01886 PH: (978)-952-7533 FAX: (978)-952-7977 -----Original Message----- From: Ong, Lyndon [mailto:LyOng@ciena.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 2:00 PM To: 'David Charlap'; IETF MPLS List Subject: RE: initiating a discussion on mpls singaling protocols Hi David, Actually, SCTP is an alternative that supports message passing and boundary preservation, plus other features for reliability and detection of signaling path failure. It was intended to relieve the application from having to do continual verification of the signaling path and support of a backup path. However, it was being defined at about the same time as MPLS, so it was never considered as an alternative for transport of MPLS signaling. A reliable UDP was one of the alternatives considered when doing SCTP, but it still leaves the application to do testing of the signaling path and message rerouting if that fails, and does not have congestion control built in. Cheers, Lyndon -----Original Message----- From: David Charlap [mailto:david.charlap@marconi.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 7:45 AM To: IETF MPLS List Subject: Re: initiating a discussion on mpls singaling protocols As for the rest, TCP is not an appropriate transport for signaling protocols in the first place. RSVP-TE, LDP and CR-LDP all use a message-passing mechanism. They are not designed around streaming data. Use of a streaming protocol means that the protocol has to deal with the issue of detecting message boundaries and half-received messages. Unfortunately, there is no standard for anything resembling reliable UDP - that would be ideal.
|
|