The MPLS WG Archive

[Giles Heron <giles@packetexchange.net>]

On Wed, 2002-07-24 at 18:55, Jothilingam, Vasudevan (Vasu) wrote: 
> Giles
> 
> I understand that, I just wanted make sure..
> So are we suggesting that Just have LDP. Well, I am not sure what will that
> buy us 
> without TE.

No - I am suggesting that we need LDP, and that we also need a TE
mechanism.  Given that RSVP-TE is so widely deployed I think the
opportunity for CR-LDP has passed. 

BTW - LDP actually buys us plenty without TE (only IMO of course - I
don't want anyone to restart that "we need to kill LDP because it isn't
compatible with MPLS OAM" thread!)  However some SPs have TE
requirements, so we need TE as well. 

Giles 
 
> Vasu Jothilingam
> Lucent Technologies
> 1 Robbins Rd
> Westford, MA-01886
> PH:   (978)-952-7533
> FAX: (978)-952-7977
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Giles Heron [mailto:giles@packetexchange.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 3:49 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"
> =================================================================
> 
-- 
=================================================================
Giles Heron    Principal Network Architect    PacketExchange Ltd.
ph: +44 7880 506185              "if you build it they will yawn"
=================================================================