The MPLS WG Archive

[Emmanuel.Dotaro@alcatel.fr]

Hi all,
I support the idea that by definition GMPLS is a superset of MPLS.
It makes sense to have a document that clarify the applicability of GMPLS for
Packet LSPs (and also for L2LSPs –ATM/FR/Eth…- ?).
We may also consider their future integration.

regards

Emmanuel

Rohit Dube a écrit :

> On Fri, 22 Nov 2002 10:02:28 -0500 David Charlap writes:
> [snip]
> =>Any one of these would be fine for me.  My main concern here is that
> =>MPLS vendors will start implementing those features, and some may ignore
> =>the GMPLS approach, thinking that those drafts are not applicable to
> =>non-generalized MPLS.  This may lead to interop issues.
> =>
> =>Of course, vendors often ignore drafts anyway, but at least this way
> =>they'll know that there is something out there that they can choose to
> =>implement or ignore.  And those that need to pull pieces of GMPLS into
> =>their MPLS implementations will know how much must be pulled in to
> =>properly support the features under development.
>
> Excellent points David. And in fact this is what happened with the
> "bidirectional lsps for classical mpls" draft that I presented at the
> IETF.
>
> A quick solution is needed for this class of problems!
>
> Regards,
> --rohit.