RE: [PWE3] PWE3 question

["Andrew G. Malis" <Andy.Malis@VivaceNetworks.com>]

Shahram,

Yeah, you would have to treat each VC as a separate TE tunnel and use 
either RSVP-TE or CR-LDP for signaling (suitably extended along Martini 
lines for VC type and ID).

Cheers,
Andy

-------

At 5/8/2002 08:33 AM -0700, Shahram Davari wrote:
>Andy,
>
>Sure I understand the scaling issue. But ignoring the scalability,
>I want to know if it can be done and if so how?
>
>It seems that you may not be able to use LDP any more, because VC FEC
>is meaningless to the interior LSRs. But it seems that you could use
>ER-LSPs and therefore do TE. Right?
>
>Yours,
>-Shahram
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Andrew G. Malis [mailto:Andy.Malis@vivacenetworks.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 6:12 PM
> > To: Shahram Davari
> > Cc: 'pwe3@ietf.org'
> > Subject: Re: [PWE3] PWE3 question
> >
> >
> > Shahram,
> >
> > Well, it wouldn't scale very well since every switch along
> > the path is
> > involved in the signaling for each VC, and you can't do traffic
> > engineering, so I would say that's pretty much a non-starter.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Andy
> >
> > At 5/7/2002 12:02 PM -0700, Shahram Davari wrote:
> > >Hi,
> > >
> > >Can we implement PWE3 with only one label (i.e., only VC label)?
> > >
> > >-Shahram
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >pwe3 mailing list
> > >pwe3@ietf.org
> > >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
> >


_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3