Subject: Re: query : Label assignment

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 23:37:10 -0800

> > There is no reason to use both RSVP and LDP, just as there is no reason to run both
> > OSPF and IS-IS.  Pick one tool for the job.  Both are mechanisms for establishing
> > LSPs.  Each has slightly different properties.  There is no "recommended" practice,
> > as the IETF is not in the business of recommending how you run your network.  It
> > simply provides technology.
>
>   Perhaps but the ITU is in the buisness of recommending and they have recently
> recommended CR-LDP over RSVP for traffic engineered IP over ATM in public networks.

We'll be sure to remember that the next time we deploy the ITU recommended network layer
protocol.

And when we perform traffic engineering on top of a connection oriented network that
already performs traffic engineering.

;-)

Tony

---

From: Chip Sharp <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 1999 08:45:53 -0500

At 09:28 PM 10/30/99 -0400, Peter Ashwood-Smith wrote:
> > > Of all the mails i have received, it's being given, LDP is better 
> that RSVP for
> > > LSP creation, we should not use LDP simultaneously with RSVP, and RSVP is
> > > dynamic and request based LSP creation protocol, and also, there is 
> lot of
> > > overhead in using RSVP for creating LSPs for all the existing routes.
> > > So what is the recommended practise?
> > > I'm confused.
> >
> > You've been the victim of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.
>
>   I guess that makes me "Mr Doubt", that leaves "Mr Uncertainty"
>and "Mr Fear" ... any takers?
>

...snip...
I'm sufficiently burned out right now arguing over this particular issue.

However, if anyone is interested in actually reading the above referenced 
draft, you can find a copy at:
ftp://ftp.t1.org/pub/t1s1/t1s1.7/9s173100.pdf

Section 8.2.2 provides the argumentation for recommending CR-LDP over RSVP-TE.
Read and judge for yourself.

As for the status of this document, it is draft Recommendation 
I.ipatm.  Study Group 13 "determined" this document at a special working 
party meeting in September.  It is up for approval at the next SG13 meeting 
in February (for those who care it is Question 20 of SG13).  At that time 
the country administrations decide whether to approve it or not.

Enjoy.

Chip

P.S.  For whoever it was who reported me to the ITU management for 
distributing ITU material on this mail list last August, please don't 
bother doing it again.  You were wrong the first time and the above is a 
publicly accessible FTP site.

Support NetAid!  http://www.netaid.org
--------------------------------------------------
Chip Sharp                 Consulting Engineering
Cisco Systems              Telco Bio-region
Reality - Love it or Leave it.			
--------------------------------------------------

---

From: Eric Rosen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 1999 15:52:31 -0500

Peter> Perhaps but the ITU is in the business of recommending

Anyone who thinks that the ITU is in the business of recommending how to run
IP networks is a little bit confused.

Peter> and they have recently recommended CR-LDP

It  just goes  to  show  ... if  you  take a  roomful  of  people who  don't
understand an  issue, present them with  exactly one side of  the story, and
then require them to vote, by golly they'll vote for that side every time. 

I'm reminded of  the story about the man who, not  sure whether a particular
newspaper story  was truthful, went out  and bought five more  copies of the
same newspaper.   Finding the same story  in each one, he  concluded that it
must be true since it occurs in so many different sources. 

Next we'll  be hearing that the voters  in Ottawa have approved  CR-LDP in a
special referendum.

:-):-)