![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
From: Asaf Henig [mailto:ahenig at mrv.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 2:04 AM
To: chenxb at ruijie.com.cn
Cc: mpls at lists.ietf.org
Subject: RE: [MPLS] One question about LDP in RFC4447The two session can and should co-exist.
The session established via the Basic Discovery
mechanism should advertise the tunnel labels.
The session established via the Extended Discovery
mechanism should advertise the vc labels (FEC 128/129)
Asaf Henig
Software Engineer
Tel: +972-4-993-6289
Fax: 972-4-989-0564
www.mrv.com
-----Original Message-----
From: chenxb at ruijie.com.cn [mailto:chenxb at ruijie.com.cn]
Sent: Wed 20/06/2007 14:01
To: vach.kompella at alcatel-lucent.com; mlasserre at alcatel-lucent.com
Cc: mpls at lists.ietf.org
Subject: [MPLS] One question about LDP in RFC4447
Hi all,
I have one question about LDP in RFC4447.
Section 5 in RFC4447 say:
The PW label bindings are distributed using the LDP downstream
unsolicited mode described in [RFC3036]. The PEs will establish an
LDP session using the Extended Discovery mechanism described in [LDP,
sections 2.4.2 and 2.5].
My question is ,
if two PE is directly connected, can LDP session be established using the
Basic Discovery mechanism described in [LDP RFC3036, section 2.4.1] ?
I consider that in this case the session using the Extended Discovery
mechanism is maybe the same session with using the Basic Discovery
mechanism.
Thanks and Regards
_______________________________________________ mpls mailing list mpls at lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls