The MPLS WG Archive

[Ping Pan <pingpan@juniper.net>]

Ken,

Ken Nagami wrote:
> 
> Ping,
> 
> Do you think that the mechanism is generalized?
> I think a generalized mechanism for the LSP-ping is more useful.
> 

Say, one major advantage of having a generalized mechanism is to make
the problem easier to handle. Instead of solving the problem for one
protocol, it can solve the problem for other protocols as well. However,
if the protocols are very different in nature, the generic solution can
become quite complex. It may be complex to design, complex to develop,
and complex to deploy. In this case, we may be better off to develop a
separate and simple approach for each protocol.

Back to RSVP-TE vs. LDP, both will work to setup LSP's, but they are
very very different. If you look at other features in MPLS, such as
fast-reroute and graceful restart, we have to design separate solutions
for both protocols. At the end, it's all about to get things working
on-time, instead of spending all the precious time to design a kitchen
sink that can solve all the problem in the world, but late to market.

2 cents,

- Ping