Re: [mpls-linux-devel] Re: 2.6 Spec: Random comments.

[Ramon C. <cas...@in...>]

On 13 Feb 2004, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:

> On Fri, 2004-02-13 at 12:32, James R. Leu wrote:
> > The MPLS tunnel interface fits well into the 'cisco' model of TE LSPS, which
> > represents them as a ptp Tunnel interface with a peer address of the
> > end-point of the LSP.  The 'juniper' model represents TE LSPs and just
> > another route in the MPLS 'routing' table (/32 route for the end-point of
> > the TE LSP).  I personally perfer the 'cisco' model, it provides more
> > flexibility (anything that can work with a netdevice can use it).
> >
>
> Ok. So i may be getting a better idea. Essentially by being a netdevice
> it gets the advantage of being routable etc.
> Just because CISCO has it is good reason to add it.


Jamal,

Thanks for being open to ideas and thoughts.

May I suggest you setting up (when you find some time) a CVS so it is
easiear for us to sync to the latest tree? Not right now of course.


REgards,
r.