|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org To: sthaug@nethelp.no, josh@spitwspots.com From: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 09:16:17 +0200 in-reply-to: <20150429.090314.74690940.sthaug@nethelp.no> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org On 29/Apr/15 09:03, sthaug@nethelp.no wrote: > I assume you mean RFC 3630 "Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to > OSPF Version 2"? This would be used by providers running MPLS, RSVP-TE > and using OSPF as the IGP. > > As far as I can see it is supported by all major vendors. The reason > you don't hear all that much about it is probably that a significant > number of providers running MPLS and RSVP-TE use IS-IS as their IGP > (we do). Assuming the OP is referring to RFC 3630, I suppose you wouldn't hear much about IS-IS either in this regard, since the TE extensions to IS-IS and OSPF are not the final product. The final product would be MPLS-TE itself. IS-IS and OSPF are just a ubiquitous way to get the TE information across the backbone. Mark.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |