Subject: RE: draft-raggarwa-rsvpte-pw-01.txt

From: "Nurit Sprecher" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 13:37:00 +0200

Use the LDP to distribute the labels and establish the non-TE MS-PWs and
the RSVP-TE for distributing labels and establishing the TE MS-PWs.

My question was why we should employ both LDP and RSVP-TE for TE MS_PWs
as you described in your mail (see below). I did not mean to non-TE
MS_PWs. For TE MS_PWs there is no use in employing two protocols. 

You wrote: " Actually it requires fewer protocol changes to use LDP for
the label  distributions, and RSVP-TE purely for the resource
reservations (as the original RSVP was used).

In that case the procedure is as follows:

1.   PSN tunnel set up manually or by RSVP-TE

2.   All PW segments "set up" by PWE-LDP signalling

3.1 Once end-to-end PW exists, RSVP is sent over it requesting
resources.

3.2  If resources not available anywhere along the chain, the S-PE

      returns a message to the U-PE, and the U-PE decides whether

      it wants to tear down the PW or not.

3.3 If resources are available everywhere the U-PE sends an
acknowledgement

     that the PW has been configured as requested."

Nurit.

-----Original Message-----
From: Yaakov Stein [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2005 12:52 PM
To: Nurit Sprecher; [email-masked]
Cc: pwe3; Stewart Bryant
Subject: RE: [PWE3] draft-raggarwa-rsvpte-pw-01.txt 

> Hi Yaakov,

> RSVP-TE already has a mechanism for label distribution. Why 

> should we employ two protocols to establish a MS PW? RSVP-TE 

> is satisfactory and I cannot see any reason to use first the 

> LDP, just for the label distribution sake.

Perhaps because I already have LDP running,

and it is sufficient for the great majorty of PWs 

(that are transporting Bbest Effort traffic),

but a few PWs (e.g. the TDM ones) require 

BW or delay guarantees.

Y(J)S

_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3