RE: [PWE3] PWE3 question

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

Neil,
 
The point is that LDP used in extended discovery mode for this
application works perfectly and has great scaling properties.  So why
specify the necessary changes to anything else?  Interoperability is
enhanced by choosing one way to do things, especially when it just works
so well - this reduces implementation and testing costs for vendors, and
also reduces both capital and operational costs for service providers.
Capital costs are obvious - operational costs because there's less
interoperability testing the SPs have to do in their own labs, and fewer
protocols they have to learn how to provision, operate, and
troubleshoot.
 
Cheers,
Andy

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: neil.2.harrison@bt.com 
	Sent: Thu 5/9/2002 18:49 
	To: Shahram_Davari@pmc-sierra.com; Sasha@axerra.com; Andy Malis 
	Cc: pwe3@ietf.org 
	Subject: RE: [PWE3] PWE3 question
	
	

	Interesting point Shahram.....I'd also like to know why LDP
seems to be the
	only signalling prtocol that seems to be sanctioned by
some......for example
	draft-martini-l2circuit-trans-mpls-09.txt says 'static' MAY be
used, but if
	signalled it MUST be via LDP.  I can see the VC_LSP is just
1-hop = single
	link-connection of the client trail, so is it just 'because it
might be
	easiest/cheapest'....or are there any other reasons for this?
And
	specifically, *why* is any other form of VC LSP signalling
postively
	disallowed?
	
	regards, Neil
	


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