[email protected]
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: the shen-mpls-nnhop Was:(Re: thoughts on draft-bryant-shand-ipfrr-no

Subject: Re: the shen-mpls-nnhop Was:Re: thoughts on draft-bryant-shand-ipfrr-notvia-addresses-00.txt
From: Alia Atlas
Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 13:52:55 -0400
It's true that one could use the shen-mpls-nnhop with just TE tunnels providing the alternates. If that suffices for requirements, I don't think that the type of tunnel will matter - just whether or not a tunnel is used.
Of course, that scenario was understood the last time the draft was
discussed in the MPLS WG. Maybe this time, there can be more discussion,
if there is more interest.

At 06:51 PM 5/18/2005, George Swallow wrote:
>   From what I remember, draft-shen-nhop-fastreroute described a mechanism
>    targeted for LDP MPLS networks, and hence MPLS would be the place to
>    discuss it, which I think is what happened. Iff the MPLS WG was really
>    excited about it and asked RTGWG to look at it with the IP-FRR glasses
>    on, I'm sure folks here would be happy to do that.

Yes.  In particular, the shen draft can be used with TE tunnels as the
backup paths.  This offers a solution in which TE is only involved in
the failure case, which could be much more attractive to customers who
don't want to deal with *all* of their traffic riding on tunnels.

So a complete solution is available in the MPLS WG.  Note that the
not-via address had not been dreamed up when this draft was first


George Swallow             Cisco Systems                  (978) 936-1398
                           1414 Massachusetts Avenue
                           Boxborough, MA 01719

Rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]

Rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]

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