Re: [mpls] Poll 2: New SPL vs re-purposed ELI for carrying Network Action Indicators

[Tony Li <[e-mail]>]

Bruno,

> Again, my problem with Bruno’s draft is that the limited space found in the ELI/EL LSE’s is clearly insufficient to begin to capture the use cases that we already can foresee for MNA, much less provide any room for growth.  It doesn’t scale. We need more bits.
>  
> [Bruno] Thank you for providing a technical argument.
> draft-decraene-mpls-slid-encoded-entropy-label-id provides 8 indicators while being backward compatible with existing egress/signaling.


And, contrary to that old TV show, 8 is not enough. :)


> If more are required, solution can be extended to provide more indicators (and data) but at the cost of requiring new dataplane feature on the LSR egress (and new signaling). Just like the proposals using a new SPL.


But then you would run afoul of extending the ELI with one or more LSEs. And that’s much more scary because now you’re risking legacy devices misinterpreting the additional LSE’s. We’ve discussed this, it’s the same problem with Jags’ draft.


> The net benefit is that in the short/medium term more devices/deployments can start using those 8 indicators, while waiting for the new generation to support the new proposal.


So we pay twice? Why not just have one solution?

The only thing we’re really waiting for is for people to stop arguing.

Tony