The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2006-Jul> msg00048



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]  
  [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index]

[mpls] mp reqs

  • From: "LE ROUX Jean-Louis RD-CORE-LAN" <jeanlouis.leroux@orange-ft.com>
  • Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 16:35:16 +0200
  • Thread-Index: AcalvkqqslCNXuLTSSStVGwYsdfO8gAADYfg
  • Thread-Topic: [mpls] mp reqs
  • X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by cell.onecall.net id k6CEYhH12380
  • X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Jul 2006 14:35:30.0837 (UTC)FILETIME=[6D0ADC50:01C6A5C0]


Hi Dimitri,

The problem statement for shared trees is quite clear (state reduction). That being said there are various approaches for setting up shared trees (MP2MP LSP, shared tree at the mVPN level...).
This is why MP2MP is considered as optional.

Regards,

JL 

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : dimitri papadimitriou [mailto:dpapadimitriou@psg.com] 
> Envoyé : mercredi 12 juillet 2006 16:20
> À : mpls@ietf.org
> Objet : [mpls] mp reqs
> 
> in this doc there is clear problem statement for p2mp case
> 
> but is no real problem statement for mp2mp beside soem words 
> in the introductory paragraph of section 6
> 
> <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mpls-mp-ldp-re
> qs-01.txt>
> 
> thanks,
> - dimitri.
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

  • Follow-Ups: