Re: [mpls] comments on draft-kompella-mpls-special-purpose-labels-02

["Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <[e-mail]>]

> I think the range 16-63 should be ample for the "Standards Action" range,
> assuming that we don't really want to ever have too many of these.  If
>the
> WG thinks this range is too small, perhaps 16-255.

I don't think that 16-63 is too small, and do think that it is just good
enough. What would prompt us to consider 16-255?


Cheers,
Rajiv

-----Original Message-----
From: "Eric Rosen   (erosen)" <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: "Eric Rosen (erosen)" <[e-mail]>
Date: Thursday, May 30, 2013 2:53 PM
To: Kireeti Kompella <[e-mail]>
Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [mpls] comments on
draft-kompella-mpls-special-purpose-labels-02

>Eric>  I think it would be better to have a much smaller piece of the
>label
>Eric>  space to be allocated under the "standards action" policy.
>
>Kireeti> Okay, will reduce.  Question is, what to do with the rest of the
>Kireeti> label space: make reserved, or FCFS (or both)?  If FCFS, how
>big? 
>
>I think the range 16-63 should be ample for the "Standards Action" range,
>assuming that we don't really want to ever have too many of these.  If the
>WG thinks this range is too small, perhaps 16-255.
>
>Usually I like the FCFS policy, but I don't think FCFS is appropriate for
>special purpose labels, so I would favor making the rest of the space
>reserved.
>
>I see the draft creates an "experimental" range 1048560-1048575.  Was any
>consideration given to having a Standards Action range of something like
>16-240 and an experimental range of 241-255?  Then all the possible
>special
>purpose label values would be in a small and contiguous number space.
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>mpls mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls