IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mpls] entropy label indicator label indraft-kompella-mpls-entropy-label

John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net> Tue, 27 July 2010 14:46 UTC

Return-Path: <jdrake@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: mpls@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF0183A6BF9 for <mpls@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Jul 2010 07:46:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.192
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.192 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.407, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 CIf+5QsLVdye for <mpls@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Jul 2010 07:46:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og123.obsmtp.com (exprod7og123.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.24]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37D4A3A6BCD for <mpls@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Jul 2010 07:46:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from source ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob123.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTE7xZ4w4cYT5sBqE8kOQ7C/Yb0zJf8mi@postini.com; Tue, 27 Jul 2010 07:47:04 PDT
Received: from EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net ([fe80::c821:7c81:f21f:8bc7]) by P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net ([fe80::fc92:eb1:759:2c72%11]) with mapi; Tue, 27 Jul 2010 07:35:14 -0700
From: John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>
To: "stbryant@cisco.com" <stbryant@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 07:35:05 -0700
Thread-Topic: [mpls] entropy label indicator label indraft-kompella-mpls-entropy-label
Thread-Index: AcstmOyCxYdanrBPTMyB8HifVpjOEw==
Message-ID: <DC8AC648-5B10-402F-AA2F-D998FB6DD1E4@juniper.net>
References: <02ac01cb2d87$a1c83ac0$c7728182@china.huawei.com> <5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB3331639844EED6E7@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net> <034201cb2d8f$25cd0ec0$c7728182@china.huawei.com> <5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB3331639844EED714@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net> <4C4EEC02.2040202@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4C4EEC02.2040202@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] entropy label indicator label indraft-kompella-mpls-entropy-label
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 14:46:44 -0000

Stewart,

Only the ingress and egress need to undestand entropy labels, so doing it this way makes incremental deployment easier.  The ingress and egress are also not coupled and can be upgraded separately.

Thanks,

John

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 27, 2010, at 4:24 PM, "Stewart Bryant" <stbryant@cisco.com<mailto:stbryant@cisco.com>> wrote:

John

Why do you prefer to use an ELI as opposed to using a new set of FECs with the property that they are followed by an EL?

Stewart


On 27/07/2010 14:31, John E Drake wrote:
Lucy,

Yes it does.  That is the whole point.  That is how the egress knows whether the ingress has placed an entropy label in the stack.  (That is why we termed it the ‘Entropy Label Indicator’.)

Thanks,

John

From: Yong Lucy [<mailto:lucyyong@huawei.com>mailto:lucyyong@huawei.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 6:25 AM
To: John E Drake; Kireeti Kompella; 'Shane Amante'; <mailto:mpls@ietf.org> mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [mpls] entropy label indicator label indraft-kompella-mpls-entropy-label

What is the benefit for such control? Egress LSR does not use this value.
Lucy

________________________________
From: John E Drake [<mailto:jdrake@juniper.net>mailto:jdrake@juniper.net]
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 8:10 AM
To: Yong Lucy; Kireeti Kompella; 'Shane Amante'; <mailto:mpls@ietf.org> mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [mpls] entropy label indicator label indraft-kompella-mpls-entropy-label

Lucy, we discussed this and decided it was better to have the egress control the values of the ELI it advertises.  Plus, getting a reserved value would be difficult

From: <mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org> mpls-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org> [<mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org>mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Yong Lucy
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 5:31 AM
To: Kireeti Kompella; 'Shane Amante'; <mailto:mpls@ietf.org> mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
Subject: [mpls] entropy label indicator label in draft-kompella-mpls-entropy-label

Hi Kireeti and Shane,

Could we consider use one of reserved label for ELI purpose? This will make implementation much easy, i.e. not need to keep the state for each ELI label. The approach can be used in general for RSVP-TE and BGP as well.

Regards,
Lucy





_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
<mailto:mpls@ietf.org>mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls




--
For corporate legal information go to:

<http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html>http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html



<ATT00001..txt>

v2.39.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status