I believe we are looking for a solution providing 100% coverage for both IP 
only and IP/MPLS networks with emphasis on full coverage.


Regards,
Jeff

On Nov 16, 2011, at 8:20 AM, "Eric Osborne (eosborne)" <[email protected]> 
wrote:

> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
>> Of Stewart Bryant (stbryant)
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 7:09 AM
>> To: Sriganesh Kini
>> Cc: [email protected]
>> Subject: Re: Charter Update (Discussion)
>> 
>> 
>> 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?
> 
> I think you also have to wrestle with the opposite problem.  If you
> declare that convergence schemes which require MPLS to provide 100%
> coverage are within scope, what exactly is out of scope?  
> 
> 
> 
> eric
> 
>> 
>> - 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
> _______________________________________________
> rtgwg mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg

Reply via email to