The MPLS WG Archive

["Shah, Himanshu" <hshah@tenornetworks.com>]

sorry if somebody has already mentioned the following point.
I have not read all the emails on this thread.

If IP over IP is used instead of MPLS tunnels, doesn't it
rule out the retrofitted L2 switches (ATM/FR switches) as P devices?

/himanshu

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nabil Seddigh [mailto:nseddigh@tropicnetworks.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 3:08 PM
> To: Shahram Davari
> Cc: 'mpls@uu.net'; 'ppvpn@ppvpn.francetelecom.com'
> Subject: Re: Basic LDP Question
> 
> 
> 
> Discussion regarding spoofing, header overhead, hw availability etc 
> all appear to be ancillary arguments made in hindsight.
> 
> It seems to me that LDP's emergence a number of years ago could be
> attributed primarily to the need for alternatives to the 
> longest prefix match route lookup. The latter was typically 
> software-based and relatively "slow". This doesn't appear to be
> as much of a concern anymore - at least this is what the chip 
> & NP vendors would have us believe :) 
> 
> Best,
> Nabil Seddigh
> 
> 
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > What problem a mp2p LDP-based MPLS network is trying to 
> solve (like the one used in RFC2547) that can't be done with 
> pure IP forwarding?
> > 
> > Note: Don't tell me fast forwarding, because we can do fast 
> IP lookup as well.
> > 
> > Yours,
> > Shahram
> 
>