IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net> Tue, 27 July 2010 14:36 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 6E7AA3A6BEF for <mpls@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Jul 2010 07:36:42 -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 U0boEqfUNYmC for <mpls@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Jul 2010 07:36:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og103.obsmtp.com (exprod7og103.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.159]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A3B63A6B86 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Jul 2010 07:36:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from source ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob103.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTE7vBvU+8cAcivSfE9YppL8/WQuVYIXr@postini.com; Tue, 27 Jul 2010 07:36:59 PDT
Received: from EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net ([fe80::c821:7c81:f21f:8bc7]) by P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net ([::1]) with mapi; Tue, 27 Jul 2010 07:35:28 -0700
From: Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>
To: "stbryant@cisco.com" <stbryant@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 07:35:27 -0700
Thread-Topic: [mpls] entropy label indicator label indraft-kompella-mpls-entropy-label
Thread-Index: AcstmPUotcO+R5ZdSoSLeLMTfeNdSg==
Message-ID: <79C0A7DD-2639-42B5-9437-A115B4E5570E@juniper.net>
References: <02ac01cb2d87$a1c83ac0$c7728182@china.huawei.com> <5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB3331639844EED6E7@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net> <034201cb2d8f$25cd0ec0$c7728182@china.huawei.com> <5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB3331639844EED714@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net> <4C4EEC02.2040202@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4C4EEC02.2040202@cisco.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 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 14:36:43 -0000

Hi Stewart,

On Jul 27, 2010, at 07:24 , Stewart Bryant wrote:

> 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?

The ELI is a catch-all, in case there is any potential confusion that the EL may be interpreted as an app label.  Most app labels (PWs (via T-LDP or BGP), VPN labels, etc.) can easily be followed by an EL, as Shane's slides showed.  No need for new FECs.

The sticky case is "naked" IP over LDP tunnels.  Do you have a suggestion that doesn't need an ELI in that case?

Thanks,
Kireeti.

> Stewart

v2.35.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status