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

Hi Lucy,

On Jul 28, 2010, at 04:06 , Yong Lucy wrote:

> 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.

We might be making a bit too much of this.  A PE needs to allocate for reception only one ELI for *all* its apps/protocols.  In fact, a vendor will probably have a single ELI value across all their boxes.  We (the mpls WG) could pick a suggested value (outside the reserved range) that several vendors could choose to implement.  The net is that a PE even though it sends to many other PEs may have a small handful (or even one) value of ELI to send.

Folks, speak up, and if there is enough support, I'll throw in a para suggesting a common ELI value ... unless the chairs/ADs step in and provide technical reasons why not.

Kireeti.

> Cheers,
> Lucy 
> 
>> -----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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls