Subject: RE: PID in LDP

From: Shahram Davari <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 06:51:31 -0800

Hi Eric,

What about CR-LDP? Don't you think there is a need to introduce L3PID in CR-LDP if non-IP packets are being transported?

Yours,
-Shahram

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Gray [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 9:15 AM
> To: Bob Thomas
> Cc: Yakov Rekhter; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: PID in LDP
> 
> 
> Yakov,
> 
>     I have to agree with Bob.  In the normal case for LDP,
> each hop of an LSP is established for the explicit purpose
> of carrying packets associated with a specific FEC.  If
> some enterprising individual chooses to use the LSP in
> some other way, there is a strong implication of either a
> pair of cooperating implementations, or a need to use
> CR-LDP.  In either case, there is no need to define any
> new TLVs in LDP for this purpose.
> 
> --
> Eric Gray
> 
> Bob Thomas wrote:
> 
> > Yakov,
> >
> > > Right now we have a situation where RSVP, CR-LDP) have a 
> mechanism (PID)
> > > to identify an LSP payload, while LDP doesn't have such a 
> mechanism.
> > >
> > > Would there be any objections to add a new TLV to LDP that would
> > > carry the PID information ?
> >
> > Would you give an example of how this TLV would be used?
> > To evaluate the suggestion that a PID TLV be added it would be
> > helpful to see how the information carried by the FEC TLV is
> > insufficient.  (Please note I am asking this question in the
> > context of LDP not CR-LDP.)
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Bob
>