[mpls] moving discussion to the mpls working group list
Loa Andersson <loa@pi.se> Wed, 18 May 2005 09:47 UTC
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DYL8v-00075c-Ln; Wed, 18 May 2005 05:47:09 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DYL8t-00075M-63 for mpls@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 18 May 2005 05:47:07 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA27061 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 May 2005 05:47:04 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [80.86.78.228] (helo=smtp.testbed.se) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DYLPo-0001IZ-Jk for mpls@ietf.org; Wed, 18 May 2005 06:04:37 -0400
Received: from [192.168.230.15] (helo=[127.0.0.1]) by fw.testbed.se with esmtpsa (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 4.43) id 1DYL8a-0004zn-Cd for mpls@ietf.org; Wed, 18 May 2005 11:46:57 +0200
Message-ID: <428B0F08.50007@pi.se>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 11:46:48 +0200
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.se>
Organization: Acreo AB
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.7) Gecko/20050414
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: mpls@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: -2.8 (--)
X-Spam-Report: -2.8 ALL_TRUSTED Did not pass through any untrusted hosts
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 3002fc2e661cd7f114cb6bae92fe88f1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc:
Subject: [mpls] moving discussion to the mpls working group list
X-BeenThere: mpls@lists.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.lists.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/mpls>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@lists.ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: mpls-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Errors-To: mpls-bounces@lists.ietf.org
MPLS working group, there has been a discussion on the rtgwg mailing list on possible extension to LDP for finding out the next-next-hop label mapping. Possible applications for this functionality world be fast reroute. Since the extensions to the LDP should be handled by the MPLS working group, this mail is to indicate that the discussion will be contiuned on the MPLS working group list. The non-MPLS part of this discussion will remain on the rtgwg mailing list. This is the content of the last mail on the rtgwg thread called "Re: the shen-mpls-nnhop Was:(Re: thoughts on draft-bryant-shand-ipfrr-notvia-addresses-00.txt)" /Loa Naiming and Stewart, you wrote - and I guess this is valid: Naiming Shen wrote: > I think the needs start emerging, any important services > riding on top of IP/MPLS transport infrastructure needs > fast convergence services. It's not reasonable to assume > only RSVP-TE LSPs need fast reroute, and other > network transport does not. This nnhop-ldp draft is to > facilitate the LDP based MPLS network for FRR with > node protection. I have been talking to some providers > in the past year, there are certainly interests in > this service. Stewart Bryant wrote: > > I think the interest that we are seeing in IPFRR for LDP > networks demonstrates the usefulness of this work. Sure > RSVP-TE FRR exists, but some customers have expressed > an interest in a solution that does not use RSVP. > However the MPLS working group need to take a decision if, when and how this functionality should be developed. The way of doing this would be - write down the requirements - send them to the mpls wg - we go through the moces to establish the mpls wg consensus Comments: - I don't think FRR for LDP based MPLS enabled IP networks should not go into the rtgwg, the charter of the rtgwg seems to say the rtgwg takes of everything that does not fit into other routing are working groups (Alex and Bill comments on this?) - my take is that for this purpose you could either document the requirements in a separate document or put them into one the existing documents. I've no preferences, but this should be rather short. - my preference would be to speed this up so we could have a decision going into the Paris meeting. Also I think it will be right to take this discussion to the mpls wg list. I will write a mail to mpls list to that effect. /Loa -- Loa Andersson Principal Networking Architect Acreo AB phone: +46 8 632 77 14 Isafjordsgatan 22 mobile: +46 739 81 21 64 Kista, Sweden email: loa.andersson@acreo.se loa@pi.se _______________________________________________ mpls mailing list mpls@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
- [mpls] moving discussion to the mpls working grou… Loa Andersson
- RE: [mpls] moving discussion to the mpls working … benjamin.niven-jenkins
- RE: [mpls] moving discussion to the mpls working … Alia Atlas