Subject: Re: draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-06

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 19:18:12 +0000

+1

William Zayas
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Unbehagen [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 02:19 PM
To: 'Jeff Tantsura'
Cc: [email-masked], 'RahulAggarwal'
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-06

+1 -- Paul Unbehagen On Sep 21, 2010, at 12:01 PM, Jeff Tantsura wrote: > +1 > > Regards, > Jeff > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Henderickx, Wim (Wim) > Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 03:43 > To: Rahul Aggarwal > Cc: [email-masked] > Subject: draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-06 > > Rahul, > > On the draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-06 there is a mandatory requirement for P2MP RSVP and NOT for mLDP although it is possible. Some service providers want to use mLDP iso RSVP here, so I believe we should be more flexible in the draft and allow both. > Is there a good reason to make only P2MP RSVP mandatory and not mLDP? > > Cheers, > Wim