IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mpls] entropy label indicator -- single, commonly agreed value?

Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net> Wed, 28 July 2010 13:25 UTC

Return-Path: <kireeti@juniper.net>
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 3A8C63A6A4C for <mpls@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 06:25:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 1wreTQQ5vgLT for <mpls@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 06:25:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og116.obsmtp.com (exprod7og116.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.219]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29D163A699E for <mpls@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 06:25:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from source ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob116.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTFAvzEjf+NBFWtWYeeh2GxbqdqQGA+fz@postini.com; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 06:25:36 PDT
Received: from EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net ([fe80::c821:7c81:f21f:8bc7]) by P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net ([::1]) with mapi; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 06:22:32 -0700
From: Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>
To: Yong Lucy <lucyyong@huawei.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 06:22:31 -0700
Thread-Topic: [mpls] entropy label indicator -- single, commonly agreed value?
Thread-Index: AcsuV+9Rbl+CGyPORiuLtdNWYbKlBw==
Message-ID: <45D187C3-54F5-451D-9146-2966DD74B5B6@juniper.net>
References: "Your message of Tue, 27 Jul 2010 15:24:02 BST." <4C4EEC02.2040202@cisco.com> <201007280737.o6S7bcXk090494@harbor.orleans.occnc.com> <04d401cb2e44$e45dfdd0$c7728182@china.huawei.com> <82522A95-8A16-4BB4-B0BC-F86A9A8F03E1@juniper.net> <000601cb2e4e$8b0ddf20$c7728182@china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <000601cb2e4e$8b0ddf20$c7728182@china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] entropy label indicator -- single, commonly agreed value?
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: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 13:25:14 -0000

On Jul 28, 2010, at 05:15 , Yong Lucy wrote:

> There is one technical reason to have one common ELI label value: for
> multicast packets.

Shane gently pointed out that ELs can be used for better load balancing on LAGs (i.e., not just multi-path LSPs).

Given that, I'll ask the chairs to start a thread on how we can converge on a single ELI value.

George, Loa: having everyone agree on a common ELI is convenient, and necessary in some cases.  So, can we (a) ignore those cases; or (b) coopt a reserved label, or (c) coopt a regular label, or (d) [I'm open to other suggestions]

Kireeti.

v2.27.8 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status