Re: [spring] Comments on Section 3// WG Adoption Call for draft-martin-spring-segment-routing-ipv6-use-cases

[Yakov Rekhter <[e-mail]>]

Robert,

> Hi Robin,
> 
> Please notice that mLDP and LDP have nothing in common as far as protocol
> itself. So those are two separate protocols.

To put some reality check on your claim, and especially on the part
that "mLDP and LDP have nothing in common as far as protocol itself",
let me point out the following from Section 1 of rfc6388 ("Label
Distribution Protocol Extensions for Point-to-Multipoint and
Multipoint-to-Multipoint Label Switched Paths"):

                         This document describes extensions to LDP for
   setting up point-to-multipoint (P2MP) and multipoint-to-multipoint
   (MP2MP) LSPs.  

Yakov.

P.S. Just to avoid any further confusion, rfc6388 is the specification
for mLDP.

> 
> The name may be confusing ;)

> 
> Cheers,
> R.
> On Mar 27, 2014 5:26 PM, "Lizhenbin" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> >  Alvaro,
> >
> >
> >
> > Section 3 of draft-previdi-spring-problem-statement presents as follows:
> >
> >
> >
> > "  The source-based routing model, applied to the MPLS dataplane, offers
> >    the ability to tunnel services (VPN, VPLS, VPWS) from an ingress PE
> >    to an egress PE, without any other protocol than IGPs (ISIS or OSPF).
> >    LDP and RSVP-TE signaling protocols are not required."
> >
> >
> >
> > In my opinion, now the IP network is alway to bear multiple services
> > including unicast and mulitcast. Then LDP does not only mean RFC 5036, b
ut
> > RFC 5036 and mLDP. RSVP-TE does not only mean RFC 3209, but RFC 3209 and
> > P2MP TE. If SR path does not cover multicast, "LDP and RSVP-TE signaling
> > protocols are not required" is just to mislead.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Zhenbin(Robin)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > This message officially starts the call for adoption for
> > > draft-previdi-spring-problem-statement.
> > >
> > > Please indicate your position about adopting this use cases draft
> > > by end-of-day on March 27, 2014.
> > >
> > > Some additional background:  We had issued a call for adoption for
> > > draft-filsfils-rtgwg-segment-routing-use-cases-02 back in November.
> > > From both the discussion at the meeting in Vancouver and on the
> > > list, there was consensus to adopt.  The authors published
> > > draft-previdi-spring-problem-statement-00 as a revision to the
> > > original draft without the solution being present in the use case
> > > description.
> > >
> > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-previdi-spring-problem-statement
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > spring mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
> >
> >
> 
> --bcaec51827b894d9e804f5997d28
> Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> 
> <p dir=3D"ltr">Hi Robin,</p>
> <p dir=3D"ltr">Please notice that mLDP and LDP have nothing in common as f
a=
> r as protocol itself. So those are two separate protocols.</p>
> <p dir=3D"ltr">The name may be confusing ;)</p>
> <p dir=3D"ltr">Cheers,<br>
> R.</p>
> <div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Mar 27, 2014 5:26 PM, &quot;Lizhenbin&quot; 
&=
> lt;<a href=3D"mailto:[e-mail]">[e-mail]</a>&gt; wr
o=
> te:<br type=3D"attribution"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"mar
g=
> in:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> <div>
> <div style=3D"direction:ltr;font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma">
> <p>Alvaro,</p>
> <p>=A0</p>
> <p>Section 3 of draft-previdi-spring-problem-statement presents as follows
:=
> </p>
> <p>=A0</p>
> <p>&quot;=A0 The source-based routing model, applied to the MPLS dataplane
,=
>  offers<br>
> =A0=A0 the ability to tunnel services (VPN, VPLS, VPWS) from an ingress PE
<=
> br>
> =A0=A0 to an egress PE, without any other protocol than IGPs (ISIS or OSPF
)=
> .<br>
> =A0=A0 LDP and RSVP-TE signaling protocols are not required.&quot;</p>
> <p>=A0</p>
> <p>In my opinion, now the IP network is alway to bear multiple services in
c=
> luding unicast and mulitcast. Then LDP does not only mean RFC 5036, but RF
C=
>  5036 and mLDP. RSVP-TE does not only mean RFC 3209, but RFC 3209 and P2MP
 =
> TE. If SR path does not cover multicast,
>  &quot;LDP and RSVP-TE signaling protocols are not required&quot; is just 
t=
> o mislead. =A0</p>
> <p>=A0</p>
> <p>=A0</p>
> <p>Regards,</p>
> <p>Zhenbin(Robin)</p>
> <p>=A0</p>
> <p>=A0</p>
> <p>=A0</p>
> <p><br>
> &gt; Hi!<br>
> &gt; <br>
> &gt; This message officially starts the call for adoption for<br>
> &gt; draft-previdi-spring-problem-statement.<br>
> &gt; <br>
> &gt; Please indicate your position about adopting this use cases draft<br>
> &gt; by end-of-day on March 27, 2014.<br>
> &gt; <br>
> &gt; Some additional background:=A0 We had issued a call for adoption for<
b=
> r>
> &gt; draft-filsfils-rtgwg-segment-routing-use-cases-02 back in November.<b
r=
> >
> &gt; From both the discussion at the meeting in Vancouver and on the<br>
> &gt; list, there was consensus to adopt.=A0 The authors published<br>
> &gt; draft-previdi-spring-problem-statement-00 as a revision to the<br>
> &gt; original draft without the solution being present in the use case<br>
> &gt; description.<br>
> &gt; <br>
> &gt; <a href=3D"http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-previdi-spring-problem-st
a=
> tement" rel=3D"nofollow" target=3D"_blank">
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-previdi-spring-problem-statement</a><br>
> &gt; <br>
> &gt; Thanks!<br>
> <br>
> </p>
> </div>
> </div>
> 
> <br>_______________________________________________<br>
> spring mailing list<br>
> <a href=3D"mailto:[e-mail]">[e-mail]</a><br>
> <a href=3D"https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring" target=3D"_blank"
>=
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring</a><br>
> <br></blockquote></div>
> 
> --bcaec51827b894d9e804f5997d28--
> 
> --===============5384383223427779958==
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Content-Disposition: inline
> 
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
> 
> --===============5384383223427779958==--