The MPLS-OPS Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS-OPS Archive>month:2002-Feb> msg00180



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

RE: Using RSVP-TE between PEs

  • From: "Mehdi Sif"<msif@nortelnetworks.com>
  • Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 13:36:06 -0800
  • Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 17:37:39 -0500
  • To: HANSEN CHAN <hansen.chan@alcatel.com>, mpls-ops@mplsrc.com

Title: RE: Using RSVP-TE between PEs

Hello:

Yes, big pro for RSVP-TE:  Traffic engineering (er-lsp (svc type connectivity /strict paths) /cr-lsp( constraints enforced at lsp establishment w. IGP-TE)), as initially the whole point of MPLS LSP meshing (for 2547bis, VRs(RFC 2764) or L2VPNs for that matter) was the promise of enhanced Service Level Guarantees (Qos, resiliency etc.), in the context of managed VPNs (versus Ipsec, GRE or any other tunneling mechanisms)

Regards,

Mehdi

-----Original Message-----
From: HANSEN CHAN [mailto:hansen.chan@alcatel.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 4:48 AM
To: mpls-ops@mplsrc.com
Subject: Using RSVP-TE between PEs


Hi all,

Just wonder whether anyone has deployed or tested in the labs RSVP-TE as a
signalling protocol between PEs (in the context of RFC2547bis) for outer label
instead of LDP. What could be the pros and cons with RSVP-TE over LDP?

Your insight is well-appreciated.

Thanks,
Hansen

-------
The MPLS-OPS Mailing List
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:  http://www.mplsrc.com/mplsops.shtml
Archive: http://www.mplsrc.com/mpls-ops_archive.shtml