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

Yes, each egress PE reserves its own ELI label value. Ingress PEs need
remember each PE reserved ELI label. For a large network, one PE may send
packets to many PEs.

Cheers,
Lucy 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpls-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Curtis Villamizar
> Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 2:38 AM
> To: stbryant@cisco.com
> Cc: mpls@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [mpls] entropy label indicator labelindraft-kompella-mpls-
> entropy-label
> 
> 
> In message <4C4EEC02.2040202@cisco.com>
> Stewart Bryant writes:
> >
> > 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
> 
> 
> Stewart,
> 
> The same TE LSP can carry an IP payload and other MPLS LSP.  This
> avoids confusing an entropy label with a forwarding label.
> 
> The egress does not have to know apriori whether the ingress is adding
> an entropy label and the ingress is free to add an entropy label to
> some but not all traffic.
> 
> The draft only provides LDP signaling.  TE signaling should also be
> provided.  The entropy label can be a per host value (platform label
> space) and it doesn't matter much where in OSPF-TE or ISIS-TE the TLV
> is placed.
> 
> It would be nice if as we add further MPLS extensions we got the new
> behavior we are looking for without making it such that MPLS-TP cannot
> be accommodated on the same path and adding signaling to TE as well as
> LDP is a small step in that direction.
> 
> Curtis
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls