The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2001-Jul> msg00546



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

Forwarding Adjacency Doubt

  • From: Eric Gray <eric.gray@sandburst.com>
  • Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 09:46:26 -0400
  • Cc: manojkumarjuneja@hotmail.com, mpls@UU.NET, Venkata.Naidu@Marconi.com

Kireeti,

    Yes, GMPLS seems certain to be a super-set of MPLS.  However it may be
unlikely that anyone will ever implement this super-set for PPP, Ethernet,
FR or ATM given that it seems that MPLS is sufficient for these - at least
at present.

    Also, my understanding of the intent of GMPLS is that it is focused
somewhat on signaling for transport of IP packets, so I am not too sure
what you mean by 'non-packet LSPs'.

--
Eric Gray

You wrote:

> > traditional MPLS or just GMPLS ?
>
> BTW, a correction in perception: GMPLS *includes* traditional/classical
> MPLS.  GMPLS is *not* restricted to non-packet LSPs!
>
> Kireeti.