The MPLS WG Archive

[Nabil Seddigh <nseddigh@tropicnetworks.com>]

David, 

This is an excellent point that must surely be a source of concern
to many! It is certainly an issue that has been raised before on
this mailing list.

For various reasons, the authors did not wish to undertake
the effort required to change the current drafts.

Unnumbered links & graceful restart are not specific to gmpls
and I never understood the rational for rolling them into
the gmpls drafts. IMHO, it is better to remove the content in 
2 separate drafts. 

However, if this is too much work for the authors at this 
point then approach of an "MPLS-applicable" section in the 
GMPLS drafts may be a suitable compromise.

Best,
Nabil Seddigh
nseddigh@tropicnetworks.com


David Charlap wrote:
> 
> During the course of development, I have noticed that there are several
> features of generalized-RSVP (draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-09)
> that are applicable to non-generalized MPLS networks.
> 
> Two immediately come to mind:
> 
> 1: Support unnumbered links in explicit routes (as defined by
> draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-unnum-08) which requires as a prerequisite, support
> for the IF_ID versions of the HOP and ERROR_SPEC objects (section 8)
> 
> 2: Fault handling and restart capabilities (section 9)
> 
> Right now, in order to provide thse features in an MPLS switch, one must
> either use a proprietary solution, or must attempt a partial
> implementation of GMPLS for the MPLS environment.
> 
> What should be done about this?  I don't think it's appropriate to
> simply tell people "use GMPLS or do without the features".
> 
> Perhaps a section on applicability to MPLS networks can be added to the
> relevant GMPLS drafts?  Or perhaps those sections of GMPLS that are also
> applicable to MPLS should be broken off into separate drafts?
> 
> Opinions?
> 
> -- David