RE: [PWE3] PWE3 question

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

Eric,

In non-tunneled case I can't use LDP without upgrading all interior nodes, 
because RFC 3036 says:

"  If it encounters a FEC Element type it cannot decode, it should stop
   decoding the FEC TLV, abort processing the message containing the
   TLV, and send an "Unknown FEC" Notification message to its LDP peer
   signaling an error."

-Shahram

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Rosen [mailto:erosen@cisco.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 12:58 PM
> To: Shahram Davari
> Cc: 'Sasha Vainshtein'; 'pwe3@ietf.org'; Danny McPherson (E-mail);
> 'Andrew G. Malis'; Neil. 2. Harrison (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: [PWE3] PWE3 question 
> 
> 
> 
> Shahram> Sure, but what if the  Provider network is small or 
> supporting very
> Shahram> few PWE3 connections. 
> 
> Certainly this was not the design  center, but the LDP method 
> does work well
> in  this case  as well,  and I  don't think  it introduces  
> costs  which are
> onerous in  small scale  environments. So  I don't really  
> see the  need for
> another standard that specifically targets small scale environments.
> 
> Shahram> But  for  TE  purpose,  those  devices need  to  
> implement  non-LDP
> Shahram> protocols. They might as well use them for setting 
> up PWs too. 
> 
> I don't  think we really  need a separate  standard targetted 
> at the  set of
> small scale MPLS networks which use RSVP-TE but not LDP. 
> 
> Shahram> Surprise: CR-LDP is IETF's standard too. 
> 
> Good thing IETF  has another standard that does the  same 
> thing and actually
> gets used!  
> 
> 

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