Subject: Re: Two signalling protocols (LDP & RSVP)

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 16:17:25 +0530

> Although both CR-LDP and RSVP-TE provides similar functionalities, but one
>> significant reason why we would like to run both the protocols on the same
>> interface can be that TE-RSVP supports IP record route option using its
record
>> route objects.But CR-LDP doesn't support IP record route option.
>>Mohit

>The above seems to be an excellent argument for running RSVP-TE.
>It is not (as it stands) a justification for running *both* RSVP
>and CR-LDP.

>Kireeti.

CR-LDP supports path reoptimization which means that it has the capability to
repath loosely routed LSPs based on traffic pattern changes. But RSVP-TE does
not support the feature of path reoptimization.

Mohit

---

From: Senthilkumar Rajasekharan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 12:17:01 -0400 (EDT)

Hi,

> not support the feature of path reoptimization.

Is this your own interpretation or is there a spec which explains on how
this can be done ?? 

Further I thought both CR-LDP and RSVP-TE supported strict/loose explicit
routes. Please clarify.

-Senthil