Re: [mpls] [PWE3] ELI as a reserved label

[Curtis Villamizar <[e-mail]>]

In message <AANLkTi=[e-mail]>
Greg Mirsky writes:
>
>
> Dear Curtis,
>
> interestingly, I was thinking of possible implications of EL and
> multipath in FRR Facility backup network.
>
> You wrote:
>
>   BTW - There are some implications for facilities FRR.  On the
>   facilities backup path there is no per LSP PATH or RESV message to
>   look at to see what value of ELI is being used.  If the facilities
>   backup path is over multipath (ie: LAG, bundle, or RSVP ECMP), then
>   the value of ELI will not be known.  This might force detour style
>   FRR or use of GMPLS path protection (or segement which is more
>   detour-like).  A fixed ELI would help here too (allowing bypass
>   FRR).
>
> If the protected link is LAG or Link bundle, then I think it is more
> likly that LSPs will get squeezed as BW shrinks. Thus it might be not
> a local protection but restoration that will be playing in.  Another
> scenario, a singleton link protected by a path that has LAG or Link
> Bundle in it. I think that it would be up to local policy of the
> particular PLR to signal use of EL on the bypass tunnel regardless of
> whether EL been used on any of protected LSPs.
>
> Regards,
> Greg


Greg,

I would imagine that in networks where LAG (or link bundle or ECMP) is
important, EL would be enabled anywhere that it could be supported
except in outer tiers where capacity was small enough that single
links only were needed.

Curtis