The MPLS WG Archive

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

But CR-LDP is an extension to the LDP protocol. While RSVP-TE has nothing in
common with LDP. After "eliminating" CR-LDP you will still have two MPLS
signalling protocols MPLS LDP and RSVP-TE.

Radek

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Giles Heron [mailto:giles@packetexchange.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 9:49 PM
> To: Jothilingam, Vasudevan ""(Vasu)
> Cc: IETF MPLS List
> Subject: RE: initiating a discussion on mpls singaling protocols
> 
> 
> On Wed, 2002-07-24 at 18:22, Jothilingam, Vasudevan (Vasu) wrote:
> [snip]
> > 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.
> 
> LDP != CR-LSP
> 
> Giles
> 
> > 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.
> > 
> -- 
> =================================================================
> Giles Heron    Principal Network Architect    PacketExchange Ltd.
> ph: +44 7880 506185              "if you build it they will yawn"
> =================================================================
>