Subject: RE: RSVP-TE and cr-ldp

From: "Sharma, Prem" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 20:36:18 -0700

Hi,

I feel, it's very much possible for an LSR to support both RSVP-TE and
CR-LDP signalling protocols but one would have to take care of resource
partitioning (assignment of label ranges) between the signalling modules.

Prem

-----Original Message-----
From: Hong Liao [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 3:19 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RSVP-TE and cr-ldp 

Hi,

Is there anyone can tell me if there is any LSR can support RSVP-TE and
cr-ldp?

Thanks in an advance.

Julia

---

From: abhay <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 10:43:54 +0530

Julia,

     I guess yes,but maybe one should have separate label pools.

     I also remember one can do Interworking between CR-LDP and RSVP-TE ,each running on separate

     routers.

     Regards,

     Abhay

---

From: Dipak <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 09:32:40 -0400

Why one need to have seperate label space for CR-LDP and RSVP-TE?
In the MPLS-TE-MIB,  the object mplsTunnelSignallingProto in
mplsTunnelTable is enough to identify the controlling signalling
protocol in use in each LSR. One doesn't need to know while doing Label
swapping or popping or pushing that which signalling has been used to
acquire the Label. And when there is interworking between CR-LDP and
RSVP-TE, then parts of tunnel will be owned by corresponding signalling
protocols.

regards,
dipak

---

From: "Thomas D. Nadeau" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 10:47:36 -0400

>protocol in use in each LSR.

         This is correct. Within the context of the mpls-te-mib,
when configuring te tunnels it is not important to know where
the labels are coming from to signal the tunnels. This
information is provided by the LSR/LDP MIBs.

         --Tom

>  One doesn't need to know while doing Label

---

From: Eric Gray <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 11:09:52 -0400

Tom/Abhay/Dipak,

    I think we may always regret the choice of naming that led to
the name 'label space'.  What Tom and Dipak say is true in the
sense that there is no different labeling context associated with
how the labels are assigned.  In fact, barring some sort of demux
point, there cannot be.  But it is distinctly possible that Abhay is
making the point that two or more label distirbution mechanisms
must take some sort of step to make sure that they don't issue
the same label with more than one meaning.  One approach might
be to partition the 'label space' into ranges assigned to each
protocol - but how an LSR does this is strictly a local matter.  The
fact that this is required follows directly from the arguments that
Tom and Dipak make.

    Therefore, I suspect that you are all in violent agreement.

--
Eric Gray

---

From: "Thomas D. Nadeau" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 11:41:58 -0400

At 11:09 AM 7/19/2001 -0400, Eric Gray wrote:
>protocol - but how an LSR does this is strictly a local matter.

         Eric is correct here; implementation issue. The standard
specifications do not mention this anywhere from what I
recall.

>The fact that this is required follows directly from the arguments that
>Tom and Dipak make.
>

         Yup.

         --Tom

---

From: abhay <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 11:22:20 +0530

Hi All,

       Yes,as Eric said,Label space implementations can be implementation specific.

       Regards,

       Abhay.