[c-nsp] IP LFA in ring topology

[Phil Mayers]

On 30/11/12 10:44, Saku Ytti wrote:
> 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-

Sure. PW in BGP makes sense. PW in IGP - not so much ;o)

I'm curious why everyone hates on LDP so much; is there some huge 
problem that it causes that I'm not aware of? Or is the objection 
conceptual.