Unfortunately whether MPLS is used in a particular
network segment or not is a complex and sometimes
emotive issue.
If we decide that the best solution is to use MPLS
we then face the issue of what to do about networks
that decline to support MPLS. Do we declare
non-MPLS networks out of scope for IPFRR, or do
we work on another non-MPLS solution?
- Stewart
On 15/11/2011 22:29, Sriganesh Kini wrote:
IP is addressed via MPLS. If IP forwarding were to be used
exclusively, then it becomes complicated. With MPLS being extended to
more parts of the network than just the core, it seems that is not as
much of a concern.
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Stewart Bryant<[email protected]> wrote:
On 15/11/2011 21:36, Sriganesh Kini wrote:
Hi,
I agree that having a solution with full coverage is very useful
because it removes the need for complicated analysis to determine what
is protected versus what is not (and worse, how that changes as the
topology change). But the solution has to be simple for it to get
deployed.
One approach using MPLS that solves this using extensions to a single
protocol (LDP) is given in draft-kini-mpls-frr-ldp.
It the approach extensible to an IP context?
Stewart
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
--
For corporate legal information go to:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
