Re: [mpls] Solicit Opinions on Definition of MPLS Global Label

Robin,

One of the label types you list as "global" in your draft is the
Entropy Label. To me it seems that the Entropy Label is scoped by
the label stack and the node(s) doing the hashing on it. WHy do you
think it is "global"?

/Loa

On 2015-11-04 14:26, Lizhenbin wrote:
> Hi MPLSers,
>
> As the development of MPLS technologies, many new label concepts beyond
> RFC3031 are proposed. And in segment routing MPLS label can be
>
> allocated and flooded in the network which means the meaning of the
> lablel can be understood by all nodes in the network. It is totally
> different from
>
> the label distribution behavior of LDP, RSVP-TE, and MP-BGP. From my
> point of view we need not argue if it is global label or global ID. In
> fact, the
>
> possible persons who read the drafts of protocol extensions for segment
> routing which incorporate the label allocation may be confused that MPLS
> WG as
>
> the base of MPLS work seems to have nothing with the work. But the
> challenge of definition of global label truly exists which has been
> proposed in the draft
>
> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-li-mpls-global-label-usecases-03.txt. Hope
> you can refer to Section 4 of the draft.
>
> The debates on MPLS global label have lasted for a long time. The
> opinions can be classified as following:
>
> Opinion 1: Segment Routing has nothing with global label and please do
> not make it bother MPLS WG. But it seems a little hard to convince some
> MPLSers.
>
> Opinion 2: The usecase truly exists. But the concept of global label is
> too big. It is hard to allocate a label which is unique spanning
> multiple domains or
>
> as IP address which is unique all over world since it is not a scalable
> way or it is hard to achieve the goal. Then maybe it is a better way to
> narrow the
>
> scope to rename the global label as Domain-wide label, Network-wide
> label, etc.
>
> Opinion 3: The global label can be kept to cover more label concepts
> which label behaviors in the control plane and forward plane are
> different form the
>
> traditional LDP/RSVP-TE/MP-BGP.
>
> Since I could not get more time in my presentation to collect your
> opinions, if convenient please help feedback your opinion in your
> mailing list. Hope through
>
> the discussion we can make some consensus.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Zhenbin(Robin)
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>