Re: [Isis-wg] Request for WG adoption of draft-xu-isis-mpls-elc-00

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

> always advertise _max_ number of SIDs for ECMP.

I meant that. No point to go lower at all.

> Still, in an SR network consisting of 100 nodes ... each network node used to have 100 node SID forwarding entries (assuming one SID advertised per node) but now each network node will have 3200 or 6400 or 12800 node SID forwarding entries. That's a huge increase.

Assume no aggregation it looks huge, but it's tiny if you compare it
with state required on ingress as example where all of your overlay
services reside.

> Sure the forwarding table can do some aggregation but number of "resources" reserved, consumed, advertised and OAM requires to support them are still enlarged significantly.

I do not agree. Assume v6 SR where I advertise instead of single SID
say a block of /96. It is still one prefix for all what forwarding
needs to care about.  What would be different for that prefix vs /128
prefix from the point of view of  "resources" reserved, consumed,
advertised and OAM ?

> I still see tackling EL to be appealing :)

Is this still more appealing then say mpls over UDP draft ;-) ?
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp-05

Cheers,
R.