The MPLS WG Archive[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index] [mpls] New Liaison Statement, "T-MPLS Consented Recommendatio ns"
Shahram, Jerry asked about Y.1713 and you said... > My guess: because it is not needed for T-MPLS, since T-MPLS doesn't support label merging (aka LDP). This is really hard for us. We cannot hope to guess what is or is not needed for T-MPLS becuase no-one has seen fit to explain the requirements to us. No: none of the three documents liaised has any discussion of requirements. It all launches straight into feature sets. But one thing the documents *do* say is that protocols are out of scope. So it is entirely possible that LDP would be used in T-MPLS (although I thinik that would be a bad idea!) You should note very clearly that LDP is not synonymous with label merging. Adrian _______________________________________________ mpls mailing list mpls@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
|
|