nanog mailing list archives
Re: Current state / use of OSPF-TE
From: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka () seacom mu>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 09:16:17 +0200
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.
Current thread:
- Current state / use of OSPF-TE Josh Reynolds (Apr 28)
- Re: Current state / use of OSPF-TE sthaug (Apr 29)
- Re: Current state / use of OSPF-TE Mark Tinka (Apr 29)
- Re: Current state / use of OSPF-TE sthaug (Apr 29)