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

The egress signals the ability to support the receipt of an entropy label and the ELI value in the control plane.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpls-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Stewart Bryant
> Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 8:02 AM
> To: Kireeti Kompella
> Cc: mpls@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [mpls] entropy label indicator label indraft-kompella-
> mpls-entropy-label
> 
>   On 27/07/2010 15:35, Kireeti Kompella wrote:
> > Hi Stewart,
> >
> > On Jul 27, 2010, at 07:24 , Stewart Bryant 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?
> > The ELI is a catch-all, in case there is any potential confusion that
> the EL may be interpreted as an app label.  Most app labels (PWs (via
> T-LDP or BGP), VPN labels, etc.) can easily be followed by an EL, as
> Shane's slides showed.  No need for new FECs.
> >
> > The sticky case is "naked" IP over LDP tunnels.  Do you have a
> suggestion that doesn't need an ELI in that case?
> Hi Kireeti,
> 
> Well you could do this with a new IP FEC, but you would have to have
> this running on all P routers along the path and you would need to  PHP
> both the LSP and the entropy labels.
> 
> It's not clear which is worse here. Though I note that the core
> philosophy of MPLS is to signal in the control plane and not in the
> data
> plane.
> 
> Stewart
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls