The MPLS WG Archive[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index] [mpls] mp reqs
hi j-l understood the approach you are putting requirements on optimizing the implementation - my question is do we have any real feedback that this is really an issue ? i am asking this because the reason for mLDP was de-facto the simplification of introducing leaf initiated trees thanks, - dimitri. LE ROUX Jean-Louis RD-CORE-LAN wrote: > 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
|
|