[mpls] Relation between the number of special purpose labels and the depth of the label stack - Was:Re: comments on draft-kompella-mpls-special-purpose-labels-02
Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Wed, 03 April 2013 10:45 UTC
Return-Path: <loa@pi.nu>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF9B521F85E8 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 03:45:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.048
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.048 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DKNPWdH78F+n for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 03:45:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.pi.nu (unknown [195.206.248.139]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D56621F858B for <mpls@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 03:45:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.10.101] (unknown [121.54.51.84]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C80BC823B5; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 12:45:21 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <515C0840.8080301@pi.nu>
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 12:45:20 +0200
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130307 Thunderbird/17.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jeff Wheeler <jsw@inconcepts.biz>
References: <CAPWAtbLw0vHDMO28LqNpBY93FtWFSz0eWxNjo=Qor1OxExXMFg@mail.gmail.com> <201303281411.r2SEBHJk058442@gateway1.orleans.occnc.com> <CAPWAtbJvG2EyMSgyTQyy6w-saYHfL-HE4+dwQCEQ+3wpgNhZqA@mail.gmail.com> <515BC52E.6020207@pi.nu> <CAPWAtbL9HEjcO56+5GgY+fQWVEA5ZAz=DrJeZaApuh5MJhp77Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPWAtbL9HEjcO56+5GgY+fQWVEA5ZAz=DrJeZaApuh5MJhp77Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: mpls@ietf.org
Subject: [mpls] Relation between the number of special purpose labels and the depth of the label stack - Was:Re: comments on draft-kompella-mpls-special-purpose-labels-02
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 10:45:25 -0000
Jeff, I want to see separate discussions on separate problems. The way I read some of the mails in this discussion is that if we increase the number of with one, the label stack will be one label deeper. I seriously doubts this, it is potentially not true even in the were the new special purpose label is present in the label stack. Some special purpose labels changes what is in the stack in such a way that there are fewer labels. Do we have any hard figures on the relationship between the number of available number of special purpose labels and the depth of the label stack? Same for the number of labels to be processed, do we know which effect special purpose labels have on how many labels that need to be processed. /Loa On 2013-04-03 08:38, Jeff Wheeler wrote: <snip> > > An easily solved control-plane problem is greatly preferable to the > problem you are creating, which increases the heat/power/density > challenges of building future LSRs, and makes existing ones unable to > implement new features due to the deeper label stack. > > Was there no consideration of what problems are caused by a deeper > label stack? That seems to be the case. > -- Loa Andersson email: loa@mail01.huawei.com Senior MPLS Expert loa@pi.nu Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64
- [mpls] comments on draft-kompella-mpls-special-pu… Eric Rosen
- Re: [mpls] comments on draft-kompella-mpls-specia… William Ivory (wivory)
- Re: [mpls] comments on draft-kompella-mpls-specia… William Ivory (wivory)
- Re: [mpls] comments on draft-kompella-mpls-specia… Eric Rosen
- Re: [mpls] comments on draft-kompella-mpls-specia… William Ivory (wivory)
- Re: [mpls] comments on draft-kompella-mpls-specia… Jeff Wheeler
- Re: [mpls] comments on draft-kompella-mpls-specia… Saku Ytti
- Re: [mpls] comments on draft-kompella-mpls-specia… Loa Andersson
- Re: [mpls] comments on draft-kompella-mpls-specia… Jeff Wheeler
- Re: [mpls] comments on draft-kompella-mpls-specia… Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [mpls] comments on draft-kompella-mpls-specia… Jeff Wheeler
- Re: [mpls] comments on draft-kompella-mpls-specia… Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [mpls] comments on draft-kompella-mpls-specia… Jeff Wheeler
- Re: [mpls] comments on draft-kompella-mpls-specia… Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [mpls] comments on draft-kompella-mpls-specia… Jeff Wheeler
- Re: [mpls] comments on draft-kompella-mpls-specia… Loa Andersson
- Re: [mpls] comments on draft-kompella-mpls-specia… Jeff Wheeler
- [mpls] Relation between the number of special pur… Loa Andersson
- Re: [mpls] Relation between the number of special… Jeff Wheeler
- Re: [mpls] comments on draft-kompella-mpls-specia… Kireeti Kompella
- Re: [mpls] comments on draft-kompella-mpls-specia… Eric Rosen
- Re: [mpls] comments on draft-kompella-mpls-specia… Rajiv Asati (rajiva)