[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: Naiming Shen
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 11:47:24 -0800
Hi Alia,

Alia Atlas wrote:
Hi Naiming,

At 01:01 PM 11/22/2004, Naiming Shen wrote:

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

Sure. We can have a different protocol in the network solely for resiliency to create those source-routed tunnels with the associated complexity, but at least it wouldn't be MPLS :-)
Well, the main purpose is to enable backbone IP tunnels with the
capability of TE, IPFRR is just a side effect of that :-)

I do think that the complexity of the mechanism we select for an
advanced IPFRR method has to be bounded by a consideration of what other
potential solutions exist.
If a mechanism is more complicated to understand, manage, and configure
than RSVP-TE, then I think we need to seriously consider where the
benefit is.
I agree with finding the simpler solution approach, but I disagree that
the RSVP-TE or NFRR to be "complicated" solution though...

- Naiming


Rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]

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