nanog mailing list archives
Re: MLPPP over MPLS
From: "Jason Frisvold" <xenophage0 () gmail com>
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 09:10:01 -0500
On 2/17/06, Hyunseog Ryu <r.hyunseog () ieee org> wrote:
Maybe next monday I can ask for detailed info, but I wasn't on the meeting to discuss this in detail. Based on outcome of discussion with Cisco, we decided to go with MLFR instead of MLPPP.
Any idea if this issue is just another unfixed bug, or is it something deeper?
Hyun
-- Jason 'XenoPhage' Frisvold XenoPhage0 () gmail com
Current thread:
- MLPPP over MPLS Jon R. Kibler (Feb 17)
- Re: MLPPP over MPLS Jon Lewis (Feb 17)
- Re: MLPPP over MPLS Brent A O'Keeffe (Feb 20)
- Re: MLPPP over MPLS Hyunseog Ryu (Feb 17)
- Re: MLPPP over MPLS Jon R. Kibler (Feb 17)
- Re: MLPPP over MPLS Hyunseog Ryu (Feb 17)
- Re: MLPPP over MPLS Jason Frisvold (Feb 18)
- Re: MLPPP over MPLS Hyunseog Ryu (Feb 21)
- Re: MLPPP over MPLS Jon R. Kibler (Feb 17)
- Re: MLPPP over MPLS Bill Stewart (Feb 21)
- Re: MLPPP over MPLS Hyunseog Ryu (Feb 21)
- Re: MLPPP over MPLS Rodney Dunn (Feb 22)
- Re: MLPPP over MPLS Jon Lewis (Feb 17)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: MLPPP over MPLS Erik Amundson (Feb 17)
- RE: MLPPP over MPLS Peering (Feb 20)