Re: [PWE3] PWE3 question

[Eric Rosen <erosen@cisco.com>]

Our original assumption long  ago was that no one with a  clue would want to
use a  scheme in  which each pseudowire  lays down  state in the  P routers.
Otherwise it would be as bad (unscalable) as ATM. 

Given that  one wants instead to  tunnel the pseudowires, there  needs to be
some  applicable  signaling protocol  which  is  mandatory  to implement  in
devices  that set up  tunneled pseudowires.  This is  necessary in  order to
ensure multi-vendor interoperability. 

If  someone  wants to  standardize  a  method  for setting  up  non-tunneled
pseudowires, there is nothing to stop them, and no particular reason why LDP
should be involved.  

I imagine the networks which want to do non-tunneled pseudowires will be the
same  networks which  have deployed  CR-LDP, ITU's  standard  MPLS signaling
protocol, so you may wish to  look into that, perhaps within the auspices of
ITU. 

There is  already an  i-d proposing  to use RSVP-TE  to set  up non-tunneled
pseudowires, though  I did try to  discourage the authors on  the grounds of
the assumption in the first paragraph above. 








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