Subject: Re: l2vpn signaling (LDP/CR-LDP/RSVP-TE)

From: Kireeti Kompella <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 10:35:34 -0800 (PST)

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 [email-masked] wrote:

> This forces any edge equipment to support both RSVP-TE and LDP.

True, if the TE LSPs extend all the way to the PEs.  However, I'm not
aware of edge equipment that supports LDP but not RSVP-TE (or vice
versa).

> Have the WGs considered a PWE3/VPLS signaling using RSVP?

If you believe that PWE3 signaling should be point-to-point (and the
favorite example is carrying bandwidth/QoS information), yes, RSVP
would be a fine vehicle.  Note that the LSP hierarchy draft introduces
the notion of 'targeted RSVP sessions', if you squint just right.

The argument for doing VPLS with RSVP is weaker.

Kireeti.
-------

---

From: "Yongjun Im" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 16:04:31 +0900

L2VPN signaling is implemented using targeted LDP session, which is
independent of ordinary LDP session that is used for establishing hop-by-hop
LSP. I believe the mapping PW to LSP which LDP, CR-LSP or RSVP-TE
might have established is system-dependent issue. In case of Ethernet over MPLS,
Ethernet frame could be transmitted to best-effort LSP(by LDP), or CR-LSP 
(by CR-LSP or RSVP-TE), depending on customer's requirement(bandwidth
guarantee etc) and configuration.

Yongjun.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 3:35 AM
Subject: Re: [PWE3] l2vpn signaling (LDP/CR-LDP/RSVP-TE)

> _______________________________________________
> pwe3 mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
>

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 17:24:03 +0100

Moshe,

this is a horse and cart issue. Most commonly you'll have
an MPLS-enabled network using TE and L3vpn, you will do
TE by RSVP-TE. If you introduce l2vpn into that network
why would you want to add an extra protocol for that
specific TE?

/Loa

[email-masked] wrote:

>Hello.
>
>Since the decision (RFC3468) to not progress CR-LDP, it seems that in a
>PWE3 ethernet VC, or any traffic-engineered l2vpn-ldp solution, A PE will
>signal VC-LSPs using LDP on top of pre-signaled Tunnel-LSPs using RSVP-TE.
>Is this the right way to go (or am I missing something, and the above
>observation is incorrect)?
>
>Thanks!
>/Moshe

-- 

Loa Andersson

mobile +46 739 81 21 64

---

From: Chris Chase <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 11:56:26 -0500

How well are edge nodes going to scale for a full mesh of targeted LDP 
sessions?  I keep hearing from vendors about connection limits on their 
TCP stacks.  Whether it is BGP for CE-PE connections in 2547 services or 
targeted LDP for PWE, it seems there are constant pressures on the 
number of connections vendors can support.

With RSVP for the vc label signaling I don't see the connection 
constrains from a full mesh.  A couple years ago Andy Malis told me that 
not looking at RSVP was simply because implementations were already 
starting down the LDP road.

Chris Chase