|
In einer eMail vom 10.07.2008 14:23:35 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt
bill@herrin.us:
On Thu,
Jul 10, 2008 at 7:09 AM, Scott Brim <swb@employees.org> wrote:
>
On 7/3/08 7:00 PM, William Herrin allegedly wrote:
>>
>> As
for MPLS, who wants to argue that MPLS -is-not- a map-encap
protocol?
>> Not me.
>
> There are some noticeable
differences, mainly that the (current)
> map-and-encap schemes use IP
routing and forwarding as they are today.
> There is no setup phase for
encapsulating a packet, and a core
> forwarder does not discriminate
between an encapsulated packet and a
> non-encapsulated
packet.
Scott,
Distribution of the routes to the decapsulation
nodes is a setup phase
radically different in the overview than
distribution of an MPLS
label?
> With MPLS, forwarding
depends on
> pre-establishment of a path. Labels have no
topological significance
> and are not forwardable until the per-label
forwarding behavior is
> installed in the nodes along a path. They
don't aggregate.
As we're finding to our chagrin, neither to IP
addresses.
But geographical labelling does, and, it does NOT need any
distribution mechanism.
Heiner
Regards,
Bill Herrin
|