[email protected]
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Motivation of IPFRR

Subject: Re: Motivation of IPFRR
From: Stewart Bryant
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 17:02:48 +0100
Why do we need a separate IP-FRR solution, why is it not enough to use an MPLS 
detour to a (next-)next-hop to protect links?
One application is in IP networks. Although many service providers have deployed MPLS, there are some that have not, and many non-SP networks are IP.
LFA is much simpler to deploy on MPLS than MPLS-TE, and there are those
that feel that a solution directly integrated in to the IGP is simpler
when you want universal coverage that a scheme based on universal
coverage delivered via RSVP.
The motivation behind it was that basically all major router vendors (C*, J*, 
R*) support it, why do we need a dedicated native IP solution?

Up to know I thought that there is MPLS-FRR for MPLS networks, there is IP-FRR 
for IP networks. But now I think that node/link protection of MPLS-FRR is 
straightforward to apply to IP networks as well. I mean, you don't have to 
bother about managing a full fledged MPLS network, although there will be some 
protection LSPs for FRR purposes but these are quite automatic.

Are there scenarios out there which require the extreme high resilience 
provided by FRR but which do not afford having even a little MPLS only for 
protection? Under normal conditions, the network is basically still a pure IP 

I went through the intro of all major IPFRR publications out there, but each 
motivated IPFRR with the need of an IP-only solution, but what is the 
motivation for having a native IP-only solution?
That was an initial restriction imposed in RTGWG, but since MPLS-LDP inherits paths from the IGP, there is an obvious pullthrough. Work of the adaptation to MPLS, should however be done MPLS-WG.
Do I miss something, or is the answer only something like management-overhead 
of MPLS?

Any answers would very appreciated!

rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]

rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]

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