Hi Robin, Please notice that mLDP and LDP have nothing in common as far as protocol itself. So those are two separate protocols.
The name may be confusing ;) Cheers, R. On Mar 27, 2014 5:26 PM, "Lizhenbin" <[email protected]> wrote: > Alvaro, > > > > Section 3 of draft-previdi-spring-problem-statement presents as follows: > > > > " The source-based routing model, applied to the MPLS dataplane, offers > the ability to tunnel services (VPN, VPLS, VPWS) from an ingress PE > to an egress PE, without any other protocol than IGPs (ISIS or OSPF). > LDP and RSVP-TE signaling protocols are not required." > > > > In my opinion, now the IP network is alway to bear multiple services > including unicast and mulitcast. Then LDP does not only mean RFC 5036, but > RFC 5036 and mLDP. RSVP-TE does not only mean RFC 3209, but RFC 3209 and > P2MP TE. If SR path does not cover multicast, "LDP and RSVP-TE signaling > protocols are not required" is just to mislead. > > > > > > Regards, > > Zhenbin(Robin) > > > > > > > > > > Hi! > > > > This message officially starts the call for adoption for > > draft-previdi-spring-problem-statement. > > > > Please indicate your position about adopting this use cases draft > > by end-of-day on March 27, 2014. > > > > Some additional background: We had issued a call for adoption for > > draft-filsfils-rtgwg-segment-routing-use-cases-02 back in November. > > From both the discussion at the meeting in Vancouver and on the > > list, there was consensus to adopt. The authors published > > draft-previdi-spring-problem-statement-00 as a revision to the > > original draft without the solution being present in the use case > > description. > > > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-previdi-spring-problem-statement > > > > Thanks! > > > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring > >
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
