Subject: [Fwd: Re: RSVP-TE and PW]

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 09:36:00 +0100

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [PWE3] RSVP-TE and PW
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 09:31:57 +0100
From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
To: Diego Caviglia <[email-masked]>
CC: [email-masked],        "Benny Ammitzboll <Benny.Ammitzboell" 
<[email-masked]>,        "<erosen" <[email-masked]>, 
      "pwe3\" <[email-masked]>\"" <"pwe3\" 
<[email-masked]>\""@smtpoutuk02.marconi.com>
References: <[email-masked]>

Diego Caviglia wrote:

> Hi Thomas,
>                          actually it seems to me that what we are
> discussing here is if both the protocol solve the same problems and the
> result is that:
> 
> LDP doesn't provide QoS
> LDP doesn't have TE features
> LDP doesn't have mp2p

That is as maybe, but as far as the PWE3 WG is concerned LDP is only
being used for PE parameter negotiaton. If QoS or TE is needed
the PEs ask the PSN to provide them.

As for mp2p, the charter says:

"Any multicast service not native to the emulated medium.
  Thus, Ethernet transmission to a "multicast" IEEE-48 address
  is in scope, while multicast services like MARS that are
  implemented on top of the medium are out of scope."

The only service that we are have defined so far that
might have used m/c is Ethernet.

Now if there is a new service that we need to define
please explicitly propose it.

> 
> Now may be that feature are useless but may be not.  Moreover as some
> carrier said having two protocol instead only one is not good from an OPEX
> point of view.

If the proposal had been made when we started this WG it would have
been considered.

It was not made.

Any new control protocol now needs to be justified on the basis
that it solves some problem not reasonably addressed by the
protocol that we are using today.

I suggest that the place to start is a draft describing the problem
being addressed, the reason why LDP is not suitable and a comparison
with the alternatives.

- Stewart