In einer eMail vom 10.07.2008 14:23:35 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 7:09 AM, Scott Brim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 7/3/08 7:00 PM, William Herrin allegedly wrote: >> >> As for MPLS, who wants to argue that MPLS -is-not- a map-encap protocol? >> Not me. > > There are some noticeable differences, mainly that the (current) > map-and-encap schemes use IP routing and forwarding as they are today. > There is no setup phase for encapsulating a packet, and a core > forwarder does not discriminate between an encapsulated packet and a > non-encapsulated packet. Scott, Distribution of the routes to the decapsulation nodes is a setup phase radically different in the overview than distribution of an MPLS label? > With MPLS, forwarding depends on > pre-establishment of a path. Labels have no topological significance > and are not forwardable until the per-label forwarding behavior is > installed in the nodes along a path. They don't aggregate. As we're finding to our chagrin, neither to IP addresses. But geographical labelling does, and, it does NOT need any distribution mechanism. Heiner Regards, Bill Herrin
