Subject: Re: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp-04.txt> (Encapsulating MPLS in UDP) to Proposed Standard
From: Gregory Mirsky <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Eggert, Lars" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 01:30:04 +0000
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>

Hi Mark,
if by "provisioning" you mean "mapped to", "assigned", then what about IP addresses? Ain't they pre-provisioned as well? Or these are native properties of NEs?

	Regards,
		Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Tinka [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2014 4:45 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Gregory Mirsky; Eggert, Lars; Joel Halpern; IETF
Subject: Re: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp-04.txt> (Encapsulating MPLS in UDP) to Proposed Standard

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.