[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: Alia Atlas
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 16:03:35 -0500
Hi Naiming,

At 02:47 PM 11/22/2004, Naiming Shen wrote:
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 :-)
Coming full circle, I suppose.  :-)
If a network is already doing TE and is willing to do the configuration, etc., then it makes sense to use TE Fast-Reroute. Whether the forwarding path is MPLS or IP seems irrelevant to me in that piece of the discussion.
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...
Since that's what I started with and a requirement for something simpler
for those not interested in TE, I do think of it as the upper bound on the
acceptable complexity. Whether that makes it "complicated" is a matter of
opinion.
Alia



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

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