The MPLS WG Archive[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index] [mpls] moving discussion to the mpls working group list
Loa, Colleagues, I have not been following the rtgwg and I can not find any drafts on LDP next-next-hop so apologies if my questions have already been addressed. My understanding is that the path LDP uses for a flow 'tracks' the IGP and an LDP flow will take the same path through the network as an IP flow to the same destination/FEC (assuming ECMP is not running). Therefore is there really a need for LDP FRR as well as IP FRR, when LDP tracks the IGP anyway? (Or am I getting ahead of myself and the proposal is to modify LDP to make it so that it can still track the IGP when IP FRR is used?) Ben > -----Original Message----- > From: mpls-bounces@lists.ietf.org > [mailto:mpls-bounces@lists.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Loa Andersson > Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 10:47 AM > To: mpls@ietf.org > Subject: [mpls] moving discussion to the mpls working group list > > > MPLS working group, > > there has been a discussion on the rtgwg mailing list on > possible extension to LDP for finding out the next-next-hop > label mapping. Possible applications for this functionality > world be fast reroute. Since the extensions to the LDP should > be handled by the MPLS working group, this mail is to > indicate that the discussion will be contiuned on the MPLS > working group list. > > The non-MPLS part of this discussion will remain on the rtgwg > mailing list. > > This is the content of the last mail on the rtgwg thread > called "Re: the shen-mpls-nnhop Was:(Re: thoughts on > draft-bryant-shand-ipfrr-notvia-addresses-00.txt)" > > /Loa > > > Naiming and Stewart, > > you wrote - and I guess this is valid: > > Naiming Shen wrote: > > > I think the needs start emerging, any important services > > riding on top of IP/MPLS transport infrastructure needs > > fast convergence services. It's not reasonable to assume > > only RSVP-TE LSPs need fast reroute, and other > > network transport does not. This nnhop-ldp draft is to > > facilitate the LDP based MPLS network for FRR with > > node protection. I have been talking to some providers > > in the past year, there are certainly interests in > > this service. > > > > Stewart Bryant wrote: > > > > I think the interest that we are seeing in IPFRR for LDP > > networks demonstrates the usefulness of this work. Sure > > RSVP-TE FRR exists, but some customers have expressed > > an interest in a solution that does not use RSVP. > > > > However the MPLS working group need to take a decision if, > when and how this functionality should be developed. > > > The way of doing this would be > > - write down the requirements > - send them to the mpls wg > - we go through the moces to establish the mpls wg consensus > > Comments: > > - I don't think FRR for LDP based MPLS enabled IP networks > should not go into the rtgwg, the charter of the rtgwg seems > to say the rtgwg takes of everything that does not fit into > other routing are working groups (Alex and Bill comments on this?) > > - my take is that for this purpose you could either document > the requirements in a separate document or put them into one > the existing documents. I've no preferences, but this should > be rather short. > > - my preference would be to speed this up so we could have > a decision going into the Paris meeting. > > Also I think it will be right to take this discussion to the > mpls wg list. I will write a mail to mpls list to that effect. > > > /Loa > > > -- > Loa Andersson > > Principal Networking Architect > Acreo AB phone: +46 8 632 77 14 > Isafjordsgatan 22 mobile: +46 739 81 21 64 > Kista, Sweden email: loa.andersson@acreo.se > loa@pi.se > > _______________________________________________ > mpls mailing list > mpls@lists.ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls > _______________________________________________ mpls mailing list mpls@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
|
|