Re: [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-idr-entropy-label-06

[John Scudder <[e-mail]>]

Hi Gyan,

> On Aug 22, 2023, at 1:24 AM, Gyan Mishra <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> > Section 2.5 Talks about the Anycast use case
> > 
> > AFAIK with MPLS unidirectional LSP is possible and LDP downstream unsolicited
> > from downstream to upstream node label mapping message for the FEC label
> > binding.  If we had multiple egress PE LER with the same loopback the LSP would
> > only build to one of the egress LSRs not all of them.  I think this section
> > should be removed as Anycast is really only relevant in the context of SR-MPLS
> > using the Anycast SID where the node-sid loopback0 is defined on multiple
> > egress PE’s for resiliency or on inter-domain boundaries with node-sid same
> > loopback on all ASBRs.
> 
> I’ve left it in for now, not because I disagree with you but because I need a little more time to think this through/discuss it and wanted to get 07 published. Noted for a potential update in version 08. (Note that the network operation considerations section has grown another paragraph in 07, so the section will remain even if the paragraph you've analyzed is removed).
> 
>      Gyan> Will look out for the removal in rev 8, thanks 

Bruno reminded me that Section 2.5 is about the RCA as a whole, not about the ELCv3, which is just one instance of a capability that can be carried inside the RCA. It seems plausible that a future capability could relate to something that’s not inherently 1:1, so the paragraph seems appropriate. In other words, not everything is a unidirectional MPLS LSP. :-) So, we’re letting it stand, even though it might be unnecessary in the specific case of ELCv3.

Thanks,

—John

P.S.: My comment in the parentheses above, about Section 2.5 having a new paragraph in 07, was mistaken, sorry for the confusion.