The MPLS WG Archive

["Cheenu Srinivasan" <cheenu@paramanet.com>]

> CR-LDP is functionaly equivalent to RSVP-TE. However the 
> advantage of the
> CR-LDP over the RSVP-TE is that CR-LDP is an extension to the 
> existing LDP
> protocol.
> LDP with CR-LDP extensions gives you one protocol 
> implementation, which
> handles both automatic generation of LSP based on routing 
> table and TE. On
> the other side ( LDP and RSVP-TE) you will have two different 
> protocols
> serving two different purposes. I'm not sure if the second 
> approach (LDP and
> RSVP-TE) is the optimal one.

Given that the choice in front of us is (1) LDP + RSVP-TE + CRLDP,
or (2) LDP + RSVP-TE, this is a moot point. No one is discussing
just LDP + CRLDP as a possibility.

> 
> Radek
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Charlap [mailto:david.charlap@marconi.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 4:42 PM
> > To: IETF MPLS List
> > Subject: Re: initiating a discussion on mpls singaling protocols
> > 
> > 
> > Bisewski, Radoslaw wrote:
> > > 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.
> > 
> > So?  These two serve very different purposes and are not redundant.
> > 
> > LDP automatically generates LSPs based on the routing table.
> > 
> > RSVP-TE generates traffic-engineered LSPs based on requests from an 
> > ingress router.
> > 
> > -- David
> > 
>