Subject: Re: RIP TE

From: "J. Noel Chiappa" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 14:01:31 -0400

> From: Eric Osborne <[email-masked]>

    > in order to do TE you need to have a picture of what the whole network
    > looks like, which means you need a link-state protocol like IS-IS and
    > OSPF. Otherwise, you start talking about TE protocols that look a lot
    > like PNNI....:) 

OK, I'll bite.

Could you please explain the fundamental differences between something like
OSPF augmented with link/node QoS attributes, and PNNI?

	Noel

---

From: Eric Osborne <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 15:02:33 -0400

> OSPF augmented with link/node QoS attributes, and PNNI?

Within an area, little to none.  Perhaps I was a wee bit hasty.  It's
not so much the difference between OSPF and PNNI, but the fact that
with RIP you'd have to have some sort of dynamic path discovery to
reconcile the fact that the headend doesn't have the whole area's
topology, which means at some point you'll probably have a protocol
mechanism that looks suspiciously like crankback.

eric