[email protected]
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: thoughts on draft-bryant-shand-ipfrr-notvia-addresses-00.txt

Subject: Re: thoughts on draft-bryant-shand-ipfrr-notvia-addresses-00.txt
From: Loa Andersson
Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 13:03:51 +0200

could you give me the pointer to "the last time" you are
refereing to. I find "the latest" in the reference to this
from the Seoul meeting. There were two question posed, do
we want to take LDP there and will it actually achieve
what the authors claim. Both questions were left for
further discussion on the MPLS mailing list. As far as
I remember this discussion has not taken place.


Naiming Shen wrote:


Last time the issue was with the wording of IPR statement in the
previous version of NNHOP LDP draft, we plan to refresh the
document in the mpls wg soon.

- Naiming

Loa Andersson said the following on 05/02/2005 12:55 AM:


actually the Naimings draft did not go anywhere when discussed in the
MPLS wg, this change to LDP would have to be taken up in the mpls again.


2. Explicit tunnels are needed, which means that targeted LDP sessions are necessary to have this support LDP traffic.

Yes. In the case of node protection we could also using Naiming's scheme of next-next hop LDP advertisement.

Rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]

Loa Andersson

Principal Networking Architect
Acreo AB                           phone:  +46 8 632 77 14
Isafjordsgatan 22                  mobile: +46 739 81 21 64
Kista, Sweden                      email:  [email protected]
                                           [email protected]

Rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]

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