IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Yong Lucy <lucyyong@huawei.com> Tue, 27 July 2010 15:06 UTC

Return-Path: <lucyyong@huawei.com>
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 B3E803A68DD for <mpls@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Jul 2010 08:06:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.02
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.02 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.526, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
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 v5nEZ2XGb04X for <mpls@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Jul 2010 08:06:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from szxga02-in.huawei.com (unknown [119.145.14.65]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A9893A6862 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Jul 2010 08:06:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (szxga02-in [172.24.2.6]) by szxga02-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0L6800DZI1Z3CE@szxga02-in.huawei.com> for mpls@ietf.org; Tue, 27 Jul 2010 23:06:40 +0800 (CST)
Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga02-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0L6800E4G1Z34U@szxga02-in.huawei.com> for mpls@ietf.org; Tue, 27 Jul 2010 23:06:39 +0800 (CST)
Received: from y736742 (dhcp-72c7.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.114.199]) by szxml01-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0L68005FT1YR6N@szxml01-in.huawei.com>; Tue, 27 Jul 2010 23:06:39 +0800 (CST)
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 10:06:29 -0500
From: Yong Lucy <lucyyong@huawei.com>
In-reply-to: <5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB3331639844EED714@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net>
To: 'John E Drake' <jdrake@juniper.net>, 'Kireeti Kompella' <kireeti@juniper.net>, 'Shane Amante' <shane@castlepoint.net>, mpls@ietf.org
Message-id: <03ba01cb2d9d$518de440$c7728182@china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_uEDxsT2NsKZ4hmAEKSCuCA)"
Thread-index: Acsth0oUJSF/XWniQyWod9gx1LMJ/QABXatQAACQDfAAACju8AADEgpg
References: <02ac01cb2d87$a1c83ac0$c7728182@china.huawei.com> <5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB3331639844EED6E7@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net> <034201cb2d8f$25cd0ec0$c7728182@china.huawei.com> <5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB3331639844EED714@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net>
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 15:06:36 -0000

Hi John,

I don't get it. If egress LSR asks ingress LSR to place ELI on the stack,
the ingress can insert a unique ELI label on the stack followed by entropy
label. When packet arrives to egress LSR, the LSR will find ELI on the
stack. Why is it important for egress LSP to allocate a value for ELI
instead of using standardized value? 

 

Regards,

Lucy

 

  _____  

From: John E Drake [mailto:jdrake@juniper.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 8:31 AM
To: Yong Lucy; Kireeti Kompella; 'Shane Amante'; mpls@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [mpls] entropy label indicator label
indraft-kompella-mpls-entropy-label

 

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] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 6:25 AM
To: John E Drake; Kireeti Kompella; 'Shane Amante'; 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] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 8:10 AM
To: Yong Lucy; Kireeti Kompella; 'Shane Amante'; 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: 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'; 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

v2.38.3 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status