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

From: Jeff Tantsura <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 11:31:35 -0400

Hi Rahul,

Option 2 sounds right to me.
Thanks!
Regards,
Jeff

----- Original Message -----
From: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
To: Henderickx, Wim (Wim) <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tue Sep 21 20:36:18 2010
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-06

Hi Wim,

On Tue, 21 Sep 2010, Henderickx, Wim (Wim) wrote:

> 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?
>

This is a side effect of P2MP LDP being relatively immature technology 
when this draft was originally written. While P2MP RSVP-TE was fairly 
mature and deployed. Hence it seemed practically reasonable to mandate 
P2MP RSVP-TE but not P2MP LDP.

If the WG wishes I have no problems in changing the relevant text. The 
text is:

"An implementation that supports this document MUST support
    RSVP-TE P2MP LSPs and MAY support LDP P2MP LSPs."

We have two choices:

1. Remove the sentence.

2. Replace it with:

""An implementation that supports this document MUST support
    RSVP-TE P2MP LSPs and MUST support LDP P2MP LSPs."

Which of the above does the WG prefer?

rahul