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

[Curtis Villamizar <[e-mail]>]

In message <[e-mail]>
Stewart Bryant writes:
>
> 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?
>  
> Stewart


Stewart,

The same TE LSP can carry an IP payload and other MPLS LSP.  This
avoids confusing an entropy label with a forwarding label.

The egress does not have to know apriori whether the ingress is adding
an entropy label and the ingress is free to add an entropy label to
some but not all traffic.

The draft only provides LDP signaling.  TE signaling should also be
provided.  The entropy label can be a per host value (platform label
space) and it doesn't matter much where in OSPF-TE or ISIS-TE the TLV
is placed.

It would be nice if as we add further MPLS extensions we got the new
behavior we are looking for without making it such that MPLS-TP cannot
be accommodated on the same path and adding signaling to TE as well as
LDP is a small step in that direction.

Curtis