The MPLS WG Archive

["Vijayanand C - CTD, Chennai." <vijayc@ctd.hcltech.com>]

To add one more point here- by making extensions to RSVP it may have come to
a state where it does nt have 'more overhead' than CR LDP. But should
everyone bother to add so much of stuff to RSVP and then use it than using
CR LDP. At present RSVP-TE may be leading in deployment due to kick start
given by leaders and hence this may not be the right criteria to judge it,
as Shahram also pointed out.The question is which protocol would benefit
everyone in the long run in terms of performance,feature-extensibility(as
Heinrich points out),scalability and  other implementation/maintenance
issues related to software life cycle reduction.

Regards,
Vijay

-----Original Message-----
From: David Charlap [mailto:david.charlap@marconi.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 7:50 PM
To: mpls@UU.NET
Subject: Re: initiating a discussion on mpls singaling protocols


Vijayanand C - CTD, Chennai. wrote:
>
> I accept your argument. However, it finally comes down to saying that
> RSVP-TE is not having more overhead than CR-LDP. Its taken a lot of
add-ons
> and workarounds to RSVP to bring to this level. Thats why the question of
> complexity, implementation and maintenance issues related to software life
> cycle reduction were raised.

The fact that extensions are needed to make it scale doesn't make the 
protocol somehow worthless.  You don't say BGP is trash because version 
1 can't scale to the current size of the internet, do you?

-- David