Re: [Idr] 6PE-Alt draft

 Hi Robert/ Martin,

That is an interesting point you bring out.  What you say does make sense.

I agree if load balancing is based on the labels it will not help load
share in case of 6PE-Alt - if we use a constant label. Anyway I would
assume the load sharing mechanism is configurable (what fields to use
to hash) and works within the scope of the router.

Thanks,
Vishwas

On Feb 3, 2008 1:28 PM, Robert Raszuk <raszuk@juniper.net> wrote:
> Hi Vishwas,
>
>  > The P device works on the outer Tunnel label and its functionality
>  > will not change in my view.
>
> I must say that your view here is incorrect.
>
> There are hardware implementations just like Martin pointed out which
> take not the only top most but _entire_label_stack_ in the mpls packets
> into considerations when hashing in P routers for load sharing purposes.
>
> As far as I can see your proposal breaks this as the second label will
> be always the same thus all packets going to single PE will always take
> the same path.
>
> To address this you would need to change implementations of those P
> routers mpls switching vectors to also consider IPv6 header which is a
> non starter operationally.
>
> Cheers,
> R.
>
>
> > Hi Martin,
> >
> > The load sharing and everything else on the of P devices will still
> > work the same way. So we would have for example LDP running on the P
> > routers giving out labels for FEC's just the same way. The P device
> > works on the outer Tunnel label and its functionality will not change
> > in my view.
> >
> > There is a case of having different labels for preventing one IPv6
> > lookup in some cases but in case we had the ECMP case we would have to
> > use the IPv6 header lookup and use the inner label as an IPv6 Explicit
> > NULL label.
> >
> > Do let me know if I missed the point?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Vishwas
>
>
_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
Idr@ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr