I agree. We should be working on pure IP solutions which can also be
used with LDP.
Mike
On 16/11/2011 06:05, András Császár wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
