IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp-04.txt> (Encapsulating MPLS in UDP) to Proposed Standard

Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Sun, 12 January 2014 12:44 UTC

Return-Path: <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DE571ADF64; Sun, 12 Jan 2014 04:44:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.589
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.589 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HOST_MISMATCH_COM=0.311] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xiiZZcop7tVB; Sun, 12 Jan 2014 04:44:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from the-host.seacom.mu (ge-0.ln-01-jnb.za.seacomnet.com [41.87.104.245]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4162D1AD738; Sun, 12 Jan 2014 04:44:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=the-host.localnet) by the-host.seacom.mu with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>) id 1W2KP1-0007bN-Rc; Sun, 12 Jan 2014 14:44:31 +0200
From: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>
Organization: SEACOM
To: mpls@ietf.org
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 14:44:30 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/2.6.37.6-24-desktop; KDE/4.6.0; i686; ; )
References: <20140102151419.4692.48031.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <8DCFAFEE-2B06-4334-A5D7-7698D8D3081A@netapp.com> <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B7447E4@eusaamb103.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B7447E4@eusaamb103.ericsson.se>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart1658773.OO1ujn9OSz"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201401121444.31194.mark.tinka@seacom.mu>
Cc: "Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp-04.txt> (Encapsulating MPLS in UDP) to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: mark.tinka@seacom.mu
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls/>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 12:44:50 -0000

On Friday, January 10, 2014 08:24:02 PM Gregory Mirsky 
wrote:

> Hi Lars,
> I think that " The whole point of running MPLS is to
> create networks in which paths are provisionable, so
> this is usually not an issue." is only partially
> correct. LDP-based MPLS network is not provisionable and
> LSPs follow IP best route selection. Explicit signaling
> of LSP is achievable in (G)MPLS by using RSVP(-TE)
> signaling.

Greg, I think we can delineate provisioning from whether it 
is dynamic or explicit.

MPLS LSP's are all pre-provisioned, because of the FEC's 
created. Whether those FEC's are dynamically or explicitly 
provisioned is a separate issue.

Mark.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email