Subject: Distributing Label Binding Info

From: "Mareline Sheldon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2001 12:12:18 +0530

We can distribute label binding information by piggybacking this on top of
the routing protocols. Why do OSPF and IS-IS make a rather poor match for
what is required to distribute local binding information and why is BGP
quite suitable for doing the same ? We can always extend the protocols to
carry this information by adding new TLVs.
Please can anybody explain.
Regards,
Mary

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

---

From: "Sukanta Ganguly" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2001 02:30:17 -0700

BGP is an exterior gateway protocol, whereas OSPF is not. MPLS does not have any bounds with respect to the autonomous system. Hence if labels need to be send spanning multiple AS, then BGP is the best choice. OSPF can be extended to do so, but BGP is a better match as not much extension needs to be done to BGP.

Thanx
SG

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********

---

From: Ajay Simha <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2001 10:12:18 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

On Mon, 3 Sep 2001, Mareline Sheldon wrote:

> the routing protocols. Why do OSPF and IS-IS make a rather poor match fori

-- 
Ajay Simha
MPLS Deployment Engineer
IOS Technology Division
(919) 392-3141

"Study as if you were to live forever
 Live as if you were to die tomorrow"

 - Mahatma Gandhi

---

From: Ajay Simha <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2001 10:26:40 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

> Please can anybody explain.

Mareline,

Reading RFC 3036 one can see the need for a separate protocol for carrying
labels.  It has additional things such as:

1. neighbor discovery
2. non-adjacent neighbors

I guess someone on the list can argue that all these things could be
incorporated into OSPF/ISIS or any other routing protocol.  Based on the sheer
quantity of new things in RFC 3036 it seems like adding all these new
capabilities to something like OSPF would not be appropriate.

BGP on the other had is not a link state protocol.  It has proved to be a
robust protocol to carry:

1st - unicast ip routes
2nd - mcast routes

BGP also seemed to the favorite protocol folks are are looking at to carry
voice routing tables etc..

Again BGP does not replace LDP.  It only serves for exchanging label bindings
for external routes - again BGP has been the choice of protocols for carrying
external routes.

-ajay

 _________________________________________________________ >
Do You Yahoo!? > Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

-- 
Ajay Simha
MPLS Deployment Engineer
IOS Technology Division
(919) 392-3141

 - Mahatma Gandhi