[c-nsp] IP LFA in ring topology

[Saku Ytti]

On (2012-11-30 10:35 +0000), Phil Mayers wrote:

> LDP is of course a slightly different matter. It may indeed have
> made sense to put labels in the IGP rather than LDP. But there are
> things LDP can do (e.g. multi-hop sessions for PW) that IGP can't.
> And once you've got LDP for those, you may as well leave the IGP
> alone - I guess that was the reasoning.

LDP for customer stuff, i.e. pseudowires is wrong for many reasons.
Hopefully Cisco will support BGP for pseudowire signalling soon. Juniper is
on right track here, everything in BGP and lot of focus to get BGP
convergence right-

But of course today you cannot get completely rid of LDP in network with
Cisco PEs. But call me optimist, but by the time we'd have ISIS + global
IGP labels, we'll also have BGP signalled pseudowires in Cisco :)

-- 
  ++ytti