Re: the shen-mpls-nnhop Was:(Re: thoughts on draft-bryant-shand-ipfrr-notvia-addresses-00.txt)

[Alia Atlas <[e-mail]>]

It's true that one could use the shen-mpls-nnhop with just TE tunnels 
providing the alternates.    If that suffices for requirements, I don't 
think that the type of tunnel will matter - just whether or not a tunnel is 
used.

Of course, that scenario was understood the last time the draft was 
discussed in the MPLS WG.  Maybe this time, there can be more discussion, 
if there is more interest.

Alia


At 06:51 PM 5/18/2005, George Swallow wrote:
> >   From what I remember, draft-shen-nhop-fastreroute described a mechanism
> >    targeted for LDP MPLS networks, and hence MPLS would be the place to
> >    discuss it, which I think is what happened. Iff the MPLS WG was really
> >    excited about it and asked RTGWG to look at it with the IP-FRR glasses
> >    on, I'm sure folks here would be happy to do that.
>
>Yes.  In particular, the shen draft can be used with TE tunnels as the
>backup paths.  This offers a solution in which TE is only involved in
>the failure case, which could be much more attractive to customers who
>don't want to deal with *all* of their traffic riding on tunnels.
>
>So a complete solution is available in the MPLS WG.  Note that the
>not-via address had not been dreamed up when this draft was first
>submitted.
>
>...George
>
>========================================================================
>George Swallow             Cisco Systems                  [phone]
>                            1414 Massachusetts Avenue
>                            Boxborough, MA 01719
>
>_______________________________________________
>Rtgwg mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg



_______________________________________________
Rtgwg mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg