Subject: RE: query : Label assignment

From: "Finn, Rob" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 11:00:43 -0400

To all:

Although resolving data traffic resource contention issues is important in
both types of segments, one protocol might be more applicable than the
other. I could see an application where a network topology was made up of
less deterministic segments in regards to transit and queuing delay, such as
Ethernet compared to WAN segment/clouds comprised of low and high speed
connections which have more stringent dedicated buffer, memory, bandwidth
resources.

(Note: LAN technologies VG-AnyLAN/ISO Ethernet technologies star
configurations are slightly more deterministic). Within this topology I
could see where one might want to run MPLS/LDP to benefit from the path
resolution/forwarding improvements and avoid the potential overhead of the
extensive feature set of the RSVP specification/draft series. From my
experiences, it is obvious to me where an application can benefit from
RSVP-te and its feature set.  By implementing RSVP-te and  ensuring that the
router/switch implementations  adhere to the behavior which they
negotiate(promise) through RSVP Path/Resv procedures, one could build a
network topology that truly will provide the QOS desired end-to-end for
resource constraint connectivity.  It will hopefully help heal the areas of
queueing delay(spel.)and router latency. 

Thank you,

Robert A. Finn
Manager Software Development
Harris & Jeffries

888 Washington Street
Dedham, Massachusetts
02026-6031 USA

Phone: 781-329-3200
Fax: 781-329-4148
e-mail: [email-masked]

-----Original Message-----
From: Makarand Kulkarni (98307005) [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, October 29, 1999 1:23 AM
To: Neetu Gupta
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: query : Label assignment

On Thu, 28 Oct 1999, Neetu Gupta wrote:

> hi,
>     we are implementing RSVP for creating LSPs with QoS resources. these
> LSPs are dynamically created when there is a request.
>     Please tell me, can we create LSPs for all existing routes initially
> by LDP running simultaneously with RSVP that can provide Best   Effort

I feel that there should be no need of running RSVP and LDP 
simultaneously. The RSVP messages can then provide best effort services 
by not reserving anything along the path -- they will just be used for 
setting os path. Please correct me if this is not possible 

--Makarand

> Services. If possible, how we'll do that, is it possible to divide the
> supported label range into two, one for RSVP and other for LDP?
> Neetu
> 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Makarand G Kulkarni                  | Ph.No. (+91-22)-578-1017Ext.5601,7414
Department of Electrical Engineering |                               8498 
IIT - Bombay                         | URL : http://wowsites2.com/makarand
Powai, Bombay 400 076, India         | Email: [email-masked] 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
SPANN LAB: Direct Line: (+91-22)-579-0651
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---