Subject: RE: initiating a discussion on mpls singaling protocols

From: "Vijayanand C - CTD, Chennai." <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 11:00:57 +0530

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. 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: Jean Philippe Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 14:32:46 +0200

At 11:00 19/07/2002 +0530, Vijayanand C - CTD, Chennai. wrote:
>advantageous.

don't see the technical arguments there ...

JP.

> From an implementors point of view also,having been involved