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

Curtis Villamizar <curtis@occnc.com> Wed, 28 July 2010 12:00 UTC

Return-Path: <curtis@occnc.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 7CB2E3A6A8A for <mpls@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 05:00:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.403
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.403 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.196, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 fBa313P0lvGk for <mpls@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 05:00:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from harbor.orleans.occnc.com (harbor.orleans.occnc.com [173.9.106.135]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D38F3A6A75 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 05:00:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from harbor.orleans.occnc.com (harbor.orleans.occnc.com [173.9.106.135]) by harbor.orleans.occnc.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id o6SC0ESb096811; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 08:00:14 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from curtis@harbor.orleans.occnc.com)
Message-Id: <201007281200.o6SC0ESb096811@harbor.orleans.occnc.com>
To: Yong Lucy <lucyyong@huawei.com>
From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@occnc.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 28 Jul 2010 06:06:09 CDT." <04d401cb2e44$e45dfdd0$c7728182@china.huawei.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 08:00:14 -0400
Sender: curtis@occnc.com
Cc: mpls@ietf.org, stbryant@cisco.com
Subject: Re: [mpls] entropy label indicator labelindraft-kompella-mpls-entropy-label
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: curtis@occnc.com
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 12:00:01 -0000

In message <04d401cb2e44$e45dfdd0$c7728182@china.huawei.com>
Yong Lucy writes:
>  
> Yes, each egress PE reserves its own ELI label value. Ingress PEs need
> remember each PE reserved ELI label. For a large network, one PE may send
> packets to many PEs.
>  
> Cheers,
> Lucy 


An LSR doing TE can afford another 20 bits of memory per node in
addition to the existing OSPF-TE and ISIS-TE information.  An LSR
doing PW can afford another 20 bits per T-LDP session.

BTW- (question to authors) does the FEC approach for LDP work for
MS-PW where the ingress and egress do not have a direct T-LDP
adjacency?

Curtis


> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: mpls-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> > Curtis Villamizar
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 2:38 AM
> > To: stbryant@cisco.com
> > Cc: mpls@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [mpls] entropy label indicator labelindraft-kompella-mpls-
> > entropy-label
> > 
> > 
> > In message <4C4EEC02.2040202@cisco.com>
> > 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
> > _______________________________________________
> > mpls mailing list
> > mpls@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls