> Hi Albert, > > LISP solves one part of the TE problem. That is, it allows the ITR to choose > the ETR through which traffic enters the destination LISP site. However, it > doesn't determine the path that traffic takes between IETR and ETR. So, it > that sense, LISP TE is different from traffic engineering with MPLS.
Read draft-farinacci-lisp-te Ron. A path CAN be chosen. And it is a super-set of functionality that MPLS-TE provides. > Also, I am not sure that it is *always* a good idea to let the ITR choose the > ETR through which traffic enters the destination LISP site. A discussion of > when this is and isn't a good idea might be appropriate in the intro document. The intro document should not be subjective. We should have learned from previous mistakes on this topic. Dino > > Ron > >>> - Section 7.3 needs to be rethought. LISP doesn't provide TE, in the same >> sense that MPLS does. It's quite different. >>> >> >> RFC6830 states that LISP offers TE. >> > > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
