RE: TE Requirements Draft - ELSP

[Francois Le Faucheur <flefauch@cisco.com>]

At 14:34 21/11/2001 +0100, Roberto Mameli (ERI) wrote:

>As Nabil correctly told in his mail, the same debate could be done for 
>RSVP-TE against CR-LDP. From a functional perspective they are equivalent, 
>so why should we define two protocols when just one is enough? What kind 
>of problem can be solved by CR-LDP that RSVP-TE is not able to cope with 
>(or vice versa)? No one... there are no problems to solve; simply an 
>operator could prefer CR-LDP, while another could choose RSVP-TE.

Interesting. Do you think the IETF should have specified a third TE 
protocol, in case some SP might have prefered the 3rd one?