RE: [PWE3] PWE3 question

[Shahram Davari <Shahram_Davari@pmc-sierra.com>]

Title: RE: [PWE3] PWE3 question

Hi,

 

Also one of the problems of LDP is that you are forced to use per-platform label space, which reduces scalability.

I don't think LDP should be made mandatory in PWE3.

 

-Shahram

-----Original Message-----
From: Gregory Wright [mailto:gwright@nortelnetworks.com]
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 7:46 AM
To: 'Andy Malis'
Cc: pwe3@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [PWE3] PWE3 question

Andy, one could hardly call a flat fully meshed control plane as having "great scaling properties". LDP works only in a shared trunk environment. If a provider desires to offer both a shared trunk service and a "more rigid" unstacked TE LSP based service why should we not allow it?

-----Original Message-----
From: Andy Malis [mailto:Andy.Malis@VivaceNetworks.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 8:10 PM
To: neil.2.harrison@bt.com; Shahram_Davari@pmc-sierra.com;
Sasha@axerra.com
Cc: pwe3@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [PWE3] PWE3 question

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