Re: [Idr] 6PE-Alt draft

"Vishwas Manral" <vishwas.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 13 February 2008 23:27 UTC

Return-Path: <idr-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-idr-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-idr-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6738C3A6FDB; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 15:27:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.141
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.141 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.511, BAYES_05=-1.11, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, J_CHICKENPOX_92=0.6, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZMIqweXg1zjg; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 15:27:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75A2E3A6E84; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 15:27:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: idr@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C5E03A6E84 for <idr@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 15:27:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4g9VDa8b3FnR for <idr@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 15:27:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wf-out-1314.google.com (wf-out-1314.google.com [209.85.200.173]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8806D3A6D6E for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 15:27:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 25so27140wfa.31 for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 15:29:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.142.50.15 with SMTP id x15mr489047wfx.169.1202945341061; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 15:29:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.142.102.19 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 15:29:00 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <77ead0ec0802131529t13af9092nb837d24824abe758@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 15:29:00 -0800
From: Vishwas Manral <vishwas.ietf@gmail.com>
To: raszuk@juniper.net
In-Reply-To: <47A6C39A.2010709@juniper.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <BAY120-W259B9D353746E33D0864CED8370@phx.gbl> <BAY120-W1856D92C0C10B950241B43D8370@phx.gbl> <77ead0ec0801310932i5d6ed617j3fe1df7674c0740f@mail.gmail.com> <20080201090733.GA1929@nic.dtag.de> <77ead0ec0802010926k6e57424eoc6ad1328eb65774c@mail.gmail.com> <47A631EC.80703@juniper.net> <77ead0ec0802031455s300978bfn8d10b142376f315@mail.gmail.com> <47A647FA.9040909@juniper.net> <77ead0ec0802032000p4b09c2e4j4f6bbc804a8526a6@mail.gmail.com> <47A6C39A.2010709@juniper.net>
Cc: idr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Idr] 6PE-Alt draft
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/idr>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org

Hi Robert/ Martin,

I thought over the load balancing case, which seems to be the only
advantage(it is anyway not guaranteed - but best effort) of the 6PE.

Another way to just get the behavior with 6PE of getting different
hashes for a label stack for same tunnel label is to use the label
stack more affectively.

So we can have a label stack which could have either Explicit NULL
IPv6 label, or a combination of Explicit NULL IPv6 label and Explicit
NULL IPv4 label, with the bottom of stack being the Explicit NULL IPv6
label.

Thanks,
Vishwas

On Feb 3, 2008 11:49 PM, Robert Raszuk <raszuk@juniper.net> wrote:
> Hi Vishwas,
>
> What VPN label allocation scheme to use is often left to the operator by
> the CLI. From P router load balancing point of view the worst is per vrf
> granularity ... your draft proposes per PE.
>
> Cheers,
> R.
>
> > Hi  Robert/ Martin,
> >
>
> > One more question.
> >
> > So are you saying the implementations you know provides a separate
> > label for each route, or is it per peer?  I guess it is the later, but
> > just want to reconfirm the same.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Vishwas
>
_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
Idr@ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr