The MPLS WG Archive[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index] on documenting ECMP (was on the mpls oam framework)
Curtis Villamizar wrote: > David Charlap writes: >> Curtis Villamizar wrote: >>> >>> First of all: RSVP/TE != explicit-path ... >> >> RSVP-TE's definition of "explicit" can be rather fluid, depending >> on the nature of the ERO object and how it is generated. ... > > I was using the RFC2702 definition of explicit-path. ... > > My statement still stands: RSVP/TE != explicit-path. And the rest of > it remains true. I neglected to mention that an explicit-path may > contain loose hops. I think you misunderstood my post. I was posting more detailed information about RSVP in support of your statement, not as a counterexample. RSVP-TE can only be considered equivalent with explicit-path for a small subset of the various mechanisms that RSVP implementations may generate and use the EXPLICIT_ROUTE object - for other usages, they are not even close to equivalent. > Your statement is also entirely correct. I think we are going off > into detail on a tangent. Just wanted to clarify where the > definition comes from and that it really does mean "configured" > (which can include SNMP - to fend off another possible tangient). -- David
|
|