Subject: RE: initiating a discussion on mpls singaling protocols

From: "Vijayanand C - CTD, Chennai." <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 18:10:34 +0530

The technical issues are stated in this and subsequent mails and can be
restated as 
- scalability with efficiency and performance, esp in future GMPLS networks 
- Ease of implementation and maintenance. A more cleaner protocol than
RSVP-TE 
- Co-existence with LDP

Regards,
Vijay

-----Original Message-----
From: Jean Philippe Vasseur [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2002 6:03 PM
To: Vijayanand C - CTD, Chennai.
Cc: MPLS wg; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: initiating a discussion on mpls singaling protocols

At 11:00 19/07/2002 +0530, Vijayanand C - CTD, Chennai. wrote:
>I agree with what Bhushana says.We need to look at it from the technical
>merits apart from who supports RSVP-TE and who does'nt.
>
>I think RSVP-TE has become more popular not because of its technical
>superiority over CR LDP but purely due to the push it has received from a
>few leading vendors, who choose to use it since they already had RSVP. The
>support for RSVP-TE is not because of its technical merits but because of
>the leading vendors choosing it causing others to meekly follow suit.
>However, it is not too late to weigh its merits against CR LDP.
>
>CR LDP is much more cleaner and has lesser scalability issues. Also, when
>one has LDP it is much easier to have CR LDP than extending RSVP for
>RSVP-TE. CR LDP is specifically meant for TE in MPLS and hence is
>advantageous.

don't see the technical arguments there ...

JP.

> From an implementors point of view also,having been involved
>in implementation of both the protocols, I feel CR LDP is much easier to
>understand, implement and maintain. One also needs to look at other
>performance issues, which may become critical in GMPLS, I wonder if anyone
>has checked it.
>
>
>Regards,
>Vijay
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Nagabhushana Ramaswamy Nadig
>[mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 9:45 PM
>To: MPLS wg
>Subject: Re: initiating a discussion on mpls singaling protocols
>
>
>This message uses a character set that is not supported by the Internet
>Service.  To view the original message content,  open the attached message.
>If the text doesn't display correctly, save the attachment to disk, and
then
>open it using a viewer that can display the original character set.

---

From: Sudheer Dharanikota <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 06:59:43 -0700

> - scalability with efficiency and performance, esp in future GMPLS networks

Why do you think sclability will be a big issue in the GMPLS networks?
Remeber GMPLS is meant for transport networks. The number of
active connections would be typically less than or equal to the current
number of data connections in a core.

> - Ease of implementation and maintenance. A more cleaner protocol than

Ease of implemenatation if you start from the beginning. If you take an initial
code base from a well-known site and modifying it is not a big deal. Or am I
missing something here?

- sudheer