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

Yong Lucy <lucyyong@huawei.com> Wed, 28 July 2010 08:28 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 242D73A69C3 for <mpls@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 01:28:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.458
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.458 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.563, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, J_CHICKENPOX_65=0.6, 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 zIIhtw-GavXQ for <mpls@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 01:28:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from szxga04-in.huawei.com (unknown [119.145.14.67]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB4743A67A2 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 01:28:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (szxga04-in [172.24.2.12]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0L6900H6RE6A0B@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for mpls@ietf.org; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 16:27:47 +0800 (CST)
Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0L6900FWBE623Q@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for mpls@ietf.org; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 16:27:46 +0800 (CST)
Received: from y736742 (dhcp-72c7.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.114.199]) by szxml02-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0L69009TJE5Z0W@szxml02-in.huawei.com>; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 16:27:43 +0800 (CST)
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 03:27:36 -0500
From: Yong Lucy <lucyyong@huawei.com>
In-reply-to: <201007280748.o6S7mNf3090648@harbor.orleans.occnc.com>
To: curtis@occnc.com, 'Shane Amante' <shane@castlepoint.net>
Message-id: <04b701cb2e2e$c19609c0$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: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Thread-index: AcsuKbs8/ViBOLWrRlCpn8xK25MuaQAAyRDQ
References: "Your message of Tue, 27 Jul 2010 18:22:21 +0200." <854FD998-DD00-48F1-9682-589EBE89F27A@castlepoint.net> <201007280748.o6S7mNf3090648@harbor.orleans.occnc.com>
Cc: 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: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 08:28:39 -0000

Yes, Egress PE has its own reserved value.

Cheers,
Lucy

> -----Original Message-----
> From: curtis@occnc.com [mailto:curtis@occnc.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 2:48 AM
> To: Shane Amante
> Cc: Yong Lucy; mpls@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [mpls] entropy label indicator label indraft-kompella-mpls-
> entropy-label
> 
> 
> In message <854FD998-DD00-48F1-9682-589EBE89F27A@castlepoint.net>
> Shane Amante writes:
> >
> >
> > Lucy,
> >
> > On Jul 27, 2010, at 17:06 GMT+02:00, Yong Lucy wrote:
> > > Hi John,
> > > I don=92t 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?
> >
> > I think John already answered this question, but I'll give it a try, as
> =
> > well.  It's really a design choice on the part of the co-authors, in an
> =
> > attempt to avoid asking the MPLS WG to allocate a reserved label from =
> > the very scarce reserved label space.  I would note that there are only
> =
> > 8 reserved MPLS label values that are currently unassigned:
> > =
> > http://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-label-values/mpls-label-
> values.xhtml
> >
> > So, if we believe it's "sound engineering" to use an ELI instead of a =
> > reserved label -- certainly a judgement call -- then, I believe, we =
> > should NOT request a reserved label in order that future applications =
> > that have a legitimate use (or, said differently, may not be able to =
> > function properly without a reserved label value) have an ability to =
> > acquire one.
> >
> > -shane
> 
> 
> Whether it is reserved or not, the ingress needs to verify that the
> egress understands it so there is little additional change having the
> egress provide its own reserved value.  This avoids using a scarse
> resource for no good reason.
> 
> Curtis
>