Return-Path: 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 BD4213A695E for ; Tue, 27 Jul 2010 07:24:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.537 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.537 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.061, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] 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 DXVmt3Sm0+T6 for ; Tue, 27 Jul 2010 07:23:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com (rtp-iport-2.cisco.com [64.102.122.149]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13FF73A6A02 for ; Tue, 27 Jul 2010 07:23:49 -0700 (PDT) Authentication-Results: rtp-iport-2.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgcFAKOITkxAZnwM/2dsb2JhbACBRJ4icaYuggcLAZk2hTYEiGo X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.55,268,1278288000"; d="scan'208,217"; a="139789679" Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com ([64.102.124.12]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Jul 2010 14:24:04 +0000 Received: from cisco.com (mrwint.cisco.com [64.103.71.48]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o6REO4qe004097 for ; Tue, 27 Jul 2010 14:24:04 GMT Received: from dhcp-24f9.meeting.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cisco.com (8.11.7p3+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id o6REO2609450; Tue, 27 Jul 2010 15:24:03 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <4C4EEC02.2040202@cisco.com> Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 15:24:02 +0100 From: Stewart Bryant User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.7) Gecko/20100713 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mpls@ietf.org References: <02ac01cb2d87$a1c83ac0$c7728182@china.huawei.com> <5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB3331639844EED6E7@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net> <034201cb2d8f$25cd0ec0$c7728182@china.huawei.com> <5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB3331639844EED714@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net> In-Reply-To: <5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB3331639844EED714@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------040801090106080901090608" 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 Reply-To: stbryant@cisco.com List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 14:24:01 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------040801090106080901090608 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 On 27/07/2010 14:31, John E Drake wrote: > > Lucy, > > Yes it does. That is the whole point. That is how the egress knows > whether the ingress has placed an entropy label in the stack. (That > is why we termed it the 'Entropy Label Indicator'.) > > Thanks, > > John > > *From:* Yong Lucy [mailto:lucyyong@huawei.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, July 27, 2010 6:25 AM > *To:* John E Drake; Kireeti Kompella; 'Shane Amante'; mpls@ietf.org > *Subject:* RE: [mpls] entropy label indicator label > indraft-kompella-mpls-entropy-label > > What is the benefit for such control? Egress LSR does not use this value. > > Lucy > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* John E Drake [mailto:jdrake@juniper.net] > *Sent:* Tuesday, July 27, 2010 8:10 AM > *To:* Yong Lucy; Kireeti Kompella; 'Shane Amante'; mpls@ietf.org > *Subject:* RE: [mpls] entropy label indicator label > indraft-kompella-mpls-entropy-label > > Lucy, we discussed this and decided it was better to have the egress > control the values of the ELI it advertises. Plus, getting a reserved > value would be difficult > > *From:* mpls-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] *On > Behalf Of *Yong Lucy > *Sent:* Tuesday, July 27, 2010 5:31 AM > *To:* Kireeti Kompella; 'Shane Amante'; mpls@ietf.org > *Subject:* [mpls] entropy label indicator label in > draft-kompella-mpls-entropy-label > > Hi Kireeti and Shane, > > Could we consider use one of reserved label for ELI purpose? This will > make implementation much easy, i.e. not need to keep the state for > each ELI label. The approach can be used in general for RSVP-TE and > BGP as well. > > Regards, > > Lucy > > > _______________________________________________ > mpls mailing list > mpls@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls -- For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html --------------040801090106080901090608 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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


On 27/07/2010 14:31, John E Drake wrote:

Lucy,

 

Yes it does.  That is the whole point.  That is how the egress knows whether the ingress has placed an entropy label in the stack.  (That is why we termed it the ‘Entropy Label Indicator’.)

 

Thanks,

 

John

 

From: Yong Lucy [mailto:lucyyong@huawei.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 6:25 AM
To: John E Drake; Kireeti Kompella; 'Shane Amante'; mpls@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [mpls] entropy label indicator label indraft-kompella-mpls-entropy-label

 

What is the benefit for such control? Egress LSR does not use this value.

Lucy

 

From: John E Drake [mailto:jdrake@juniper.net]
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 8:10 AM
To: Yong Lucy; Kireeti Kompella; 'Shane Amante'; mpls@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [mpls] entropy label indicator label indraft-kompella-mpls-entropy-label

 

Lucy, we discussed this and decided it was better to have the egress control the values of the ELI it advertises.  Plus, getting a reserved value would be difficult

 

From: mpls-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Yong Lucy
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 5:31 AM
To: Kireeti Kompella; 'Shane Amante'; mpls@ietf.org
Subject: [mpls] entropy label indicator label in draft-kompella-mpls-entropy-label

 

Hi Kireeti and Shane,

 

Could we consider use one of reserved label for ELI purpose? This will make implementation much easy, i.e. not need to keep the state for each ELI label. The approach can be used in general for RSVP-TE and BGP as well.

 

Regards,

Lucy

 

 

 


_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls



-- 
For corporate legal information go to:

http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html
--------------040801090106080901090608--