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

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 16:28:12 +0200

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

Is this the right way to go (or am I missing something, and the above
observation is incorrect)?

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

Thanks!
/Moshe

---

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

-- 

Loa Andersson

mobile +46 739 81 21 64

---

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

> 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.
-------