The MPLS-OPS Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS-OPS Archive>month:2004-Oct> msg00055



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

Re: Conflict in LDP and MPLS

  • From: Aamer Akhter <aakhter@cisco.com>
  • Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 09:56:25 -0400
  • Cc: mpls-ops@mplsrc.com
  • Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 10:36:55 -0400
  • X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by host.secure4-hosting.net id i9IDuZLc007258


On Oct 18, 2004, at 8:22 AM, vishwanathan mv wrote:

> The purpose of using LDP is to automate the label distribution.  But 
> the basic route that the packets take initially is the default ip 
> routes.  Is this what we wanted?

depends on how LDP is used. as you've said, LDP is for label 
distribution- how those labels are used is a different matter. For 
example in the case of martini you have a case of network 
ingress-egress. But if your point is that regular use of LDP relies on 
regular IP hop-by-hop forwarding that is a true and was the intention.


>   Haven't we lost out on our power to use MPLS (design our own routes) 
> - the reason for which it was designed?  I know that using CR-LDP one 
> can get over this.

RSVP-TE is one way to get around the hop-by-hop model.

hope this helps

>  
> Thanks in advance.
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>

-- 
Aamer Akhter / aa@cisco.com
NSITE cisco Systems


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