> IPFRR has always included LDP-FRR as well. Both are clearly > hop-by-hop distributed routing - hence the wording in the charter.
Are we also considering FRR for Ethernet/SPB? ;-) ;-) It is hop-by-hop distributed routing. So I still hold on to my first email in this thread: we should be explicit in the charter. Writing LDP and IP specifically, unicast and multicast, ASBR protection, and all the things we target. > There's RSVP-TE FRR and that is clearly for explicitly routed > paths - which is clearly not hop-by-hop distributed routing. > > Since an RSVP-TE LSP can be a forwarding adjacency that > appears as a link in the IGP, of course there is the > potential for an IP/LDP FRR solution to use a TE LSP as a link. Agree, and since there is already an MPLS-only solution, I don't see to work on yet another (even if it's LDP). I argue that working on an LDP-only solution is only justified if we do not find a full-coverage IP&LDP concept that is practical enough. (A side-note, though: even if the concept is the same for IP and LDP, the lower-level details will be of course different for the two.) András _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
