It very much appears they used IGP to propagate labels, they are just called segments. Looks like it's using the same computations as rLFA in order to build the tunnel towards the protection node. Now with this and routing-header in IPv6 do we really need LDP for IPv6 (other than the targeted LDP sessions)? I'd like to play with this
adam -----Original Message----- From: cisco-nsp [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Saku Ytti Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 5:32 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [c-nsp] MPLS down to the CPE On (2013-07-08 17:14 +0200), Mark Tinka wrote: > We, at the time, opted to wait for IP LFA since RSVP-TE in the Access > (even just to the adjacent PE routers) just didn't look > administratively feasible, let alone scale :-). Even tLDP needed for rLFA is less than desirable, additional states seemingly arbitrarily signalled up and down. Segment routing[0] provides 100% coverage for LFA like functionality without any additional signalling between the devices. [0] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-rtgwg-segment-routing-use-cases-00 #section-3 EFT program exists for IOS-XR/ASR9k at least. -- ++ytti _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
