Andre, This is a
misrepresentation of my argument. My argument is: - LMP is at
best optional. Not everyone is going to implement it. - Let's
not try to force it on everyone. Therefore your
argument to use LMP is not reasonable. Regards; Osama Aboul-Magd Nortel Networks P.O. Box 3511, Station "C" Ottawa, ON, Canada K1Y - 4H7 Tel: 613-763-5827 e.mail: osama@nortelnetworks.com -----Original
Message----- Osama,
[Osama] what is the limitation here? Are you saying having a
simple design is a limitation? Not everything has to be complex. [Jonathan] Other DWDM vendors are not happy with the master-slave
model. Also, the claim that NTIP is simple is an explicit assertion and
you seem to be trying to make an implicit assertion that LMP is complex.
Given
the CR-LDP fiasco in MPLS, it was clearly stated by the ADs and Working
Group chairs in Minnesota that only one protocol will progress in the
IETF.
[Osama] I
don't understand why CR-LDP and RSVP-TE have been brought to this discussion.
This is a completely different situation. LMP hasn't seen the wide
deployment that RSVP-TE has. The example is inadequate. [Jonathan] CR-LDP and RSVP-TE were both being developed prior to
either one of them being widely deployed. The effort involved in developing
2 protocols concurrently to do the same thing is widely perceived as being
counter productive.
|