The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2001-Apr> msg00267



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]  
  [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index]

Does MPLS Require L3 Routing Table ?

  • From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org>
  • Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 14:20:25 -0400
  • cc: curtis@avici.com, "Rajiv Papneja" <rpapneja@osf1.gmu.edu>, mpls@UU.NET


In message <15068.29845.396198.263942@lohi.eng.telia.fi>, Juha Heinanen writes:
> Curtis Villamizar writes:
> 
>  > Looks worse than NHRP.
> 
> i'm not sure if you understod the inarp draft.  inarp is used over frame
> relay all over the world and the draft describes similar function for
> mpls.  it's not very useful to send a message with the above contents
> without elaborating what is wrong with it.
> 
> -- juha

Juha,

The ATM LIS idea (rfc1577), NHRP, MPOA, are all poor choices for
scalability and reliability.  So is the FR LIS.  The reason an ATM LIS
or FR LIS is unreliable is that in practice one or more VC in the net
doesn't come up for some reason.  When this occurs, a persistent black
hole results.  Persistent black holes are best avoided.

Curtis