[email protected]
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: questions on draft-bryant-ipfrr-tunnels-01.txt

Subject: Re: questions on draft-bryant-ipfrr-tunnels-01.txt
From: Curtis Villamizar
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 14:58:19 -0500
In message <[email protected]>
Naiming Shen writes:
>  
> Alia,
>  
> > We need to arrive at a method that is simpler and easier to use than 
> > RSVP-TE source-routed tunnels.  Otherwise, the only benefit we'd get 
> > from an advanced IPFRR method is that it "isn't MPLS", and that's not 
> > sufficient IMHO.
> > 
>  
> It does not have to be "MPLS" if you consider the IP TE mechanism though
> :-)
>  
> Regards,
> - Naiming


True.  But the IP TE is so similar to MPLS TE that the objection to
MPLS TE (which I personally think is FUD) involves the effort to
manage it.  If you configure MPLS TE for zero bandwidth then the main
difference is the forwarding.  An autoconfig for MPLS TE to set up a
tunnel to all IGP nodes (for example) would eliminate any management
overhead.  If IP FRR were considering such solutions, then that would
seem to me to make more sense than IP TE (why reinvent the wheel).

Curtis

_______________________________________________
Rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>