Re: [mpls] Last Calls on P2MP LSP Ping and Enhanced DS Map

Well said and I agree.

Bud-node is not a common place in many customer topologies I have seen.

Nitin

On 5/28/10 5:32 PM, "Santiago Alvarez (saalvare)" <saalvare@cisco.com>
wrote:

> It seems to me that, in order to find PHP acceptable for P2MP LSPs, one
> the these two need to be acceptable:
> 1. precluding bud node support
> 2. bud node receiving duplicate traffic (label and unlabeled)
> Cheers.
> 
> SA
> --
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: mpls-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of
>> Nitin Bahadur
>> Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 4:52 PM
>> To: Shaleen Saxena (ssaxena); Shivakumar Channalli
>> Cc: mpls@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [mpls] Last Calls on P2MP LSP Ping and Enhanced DS Map
>> 
>> 
>> Shaleen,
>> 
>>> I was referring to
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-
>>> mapping-04
>> 
>> This draft does not say that PHP *must not* be used ever for RSVP
> P2MP.
>> This draft specifies a requirement for non-PHP behavior and solves
> that
>> problem.
>> 
>>> . Do you have an application where you use PHP? Is P2MP TE
>>> with PHP going to be deployed in service provider networks?
>> 
>> Yes...we have customers (in deployment) using P2MP with PHP.
>> 
>> nitin
>> _______________________________________________
>> mpls mailing list
>> mpls@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls