Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] about identity labels.. was Re: new versions of my slides

Loa, others,

>> 
>> I share your view. I like more the approach in which we avoid having
>> the additional d-id (and we use globally unique d-pw labels). I
>> acknowledge see all the advantages it brings, but I also share the
>> concerns about the extra label layer and the potentially cumbersome
>> processing. There have been also some discussions about the size of the
>> label pool if they need to be globally unique. I think we need to have
>> some discussion documented in the draft about this if we go in this
>> direction.
> 
> This begs the question of what "globally unique d-pw labels" means above
> 
> Is it
> 
> - global as the special purpose labels, seems unlikely
> - global as unique with in the domain, though we know there is a scaling
>  problem
> - global for one sender, not that different from d-id, other that the
>  placment in the stack
> 
> ???

In my small mind I reasoned it to be unique within one domain. Since the identity would now be 32 bits (there is no need to restrict it to 20 bits since it is part of the _encapsulation_header_ not the label stack), the scaling concern is more relaxed. Assuming each node in the domain would like to be able to name 4k unique detnet flows of their own then the domain could host 1M such detnet nodes.. not too bad for one domain.

- Jouni

> 
> /Loa
>> 
>> Carlos
>> 
>>> - Jouni
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Detnet-dp-dt mailing list
>> Detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt
>> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> Loa Andersson                        email: loa@mail01.huawei.com
> Senior MPLS Expert                          loa@pi.nu
> Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64