The MPLS WG Archive

[Shahram Davari <Shahram_Davari@pmc-sierra.com>]

I thought you have found another "good" reason. For spoofing see my
email response to Yakov.

-Shahram

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vijay Bollapragada [mailto:vbollapr@cisco.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 2:53 PM
> To: Shahram Davari
> Cc: 'mpls@uu.net'; 'ppvpn@ppvpn.francetelecom.com'
> Subject: RE: Basic LDP Question
> 
> 
> On Fri, 31 May 2002, Shahram Davari wrote:
> 
> > Vijay,
> > 
> > I know all this. The question was: 
> > 
> > "Why use LDP instead of IP?". 
> 
> The argument of not using IP is "spoofing" as yakov pointed out
> also, section 7 of 
> 
> http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ppvpn-gre-ip
> -2547-01.txt
> 
> Vijay
> 
> 
> > If you have an answer please provide.
> > 
> > -Shahram
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Vijay Bollapragada [mailto:vbollapr@cisco.com]
> > > Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 2:34 PM
> > > To: Shahram Davari
> > > Cc: 'mpls@uu.net'; 'ppvpn@ppvpn.francetelecom.com'
> > > Subject: RE: Basic LDP Question
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Fri, 31 May 2002, Shahram Davari wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Vijay,
> > > 
> > > > But LDP does not give you the TE ability. So why use LDP?
> > > 
> > > Agreed, that LDP does not give the ability to do TE, I only 
> > > said use MPLS
> > > in the core, not necassarily LDP :-) but in any case, Here is 
> > > what 2547
> > > draft says about using LDP for the top label..
> > > 
> > > Section 4.3.2
> > > 
> > > "All that matters for the VPN architecture is that some 
> label switched
> > > path between the router and its BGP next hop exists.  
> > > However, to ensure
> > > interoperability  among systems which implement this VPN 
> architecture,
> > > all such systems must support LDP [MPLS-LDP]."
> > > 
> > > Of course, once could use many other mechanisms to get 
> the vpn_labeled
> > > packet from one edge PE to another edge PE, Interoperability 
> > > is the key
> > > here.
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > Vijay
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Vijay Bollapragada [mailto:vbollapr@cisco.com]
> > > > > Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 2:06 PM
> > > > > To: Shahram Davari
> > > > > Cc: 'mpls@uu.net'; 'ppvpn@ppvpn.francetelecom.com'
> > > > > Subject: Re: Basic LDP Question
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > In the 2547 case, typically u have 2 labels, the vpn_label 
> > > > > (bottom label)
> > > > > and the top label is the label to get the packet to the far 
> > > > > end PE, Now,
> > > > > LDP is used for this top label.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I think u are questioning why use LDP for this bottom_label 
> > > > > and why not
> > > > > simply encapsulate the MPLS packet in IP to get the packet to 
> > > > > the next_hop
> > > > > PE. If this is your Q, You are absolutely correct and 
> > > this is what the
> > > > > following draft talks about
> > > > > 
> > > > > http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ppvpn-gre-ip
> > > > > -2547-01.txt
> > > > > 
> > > > > IMHO, this is certainly do-able but MPLS in the core give us 
> > > > > the ability
> > > > > to do things like Traffic Enginnering
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > -Shahram
> > > > 
> > > >  which are quite a challenge over
> > > > > pure IP.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Vijay
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Fri, 31 May 2002, Shahram Davari wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > 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
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
>