Re: [Status] Status of Spring

[Xuxiaohu <[e-mail]>]

Robert,

> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] 代表 Robert Raszuk
> 发送时间: 2013年10月13日 0:31
> 收件人: Xuxiaohu
> 抄送: [e-mail]
> 主题: Re: [Status] Status of Spring
> 
> Hi Xuxiahou,
> 
> > As I had illustrated in a previous email with an example, if you want to
> > reduce the MPLS forwarding table size, you could replace the innermost
> > LSP towards the final tunnel destination (i.e., the last hop of the explicit
> > path) with an IP-based tunnel while still using LSPs to represent the paths
> > to the remaining hops of the explicit path. In this way, there is no need to
> > create label bindings for those large amount of final tunnel endpoints.
> 
> 
> And my observation is that if you already remove inner most LSP and
> replace it with IP encapsulation there is no need to add any
> subsequent LSPs as well .. just in the case of need for steering or
> service chaining add few extension headers.

Are you suggesting containing an ordered list of IPv6 addresses, rather than short segment IDs in a packet to indicate an explicit path? 

> Why would I run LDP if I IP encapsulation provides me with the
> functional alternative and less control plane state ?

Outer LSPs could be RSVP-TE LSPs or SPRING-based LSPs as well which provide you more features in addition to path connectivity.

Best regards,
Xiaohu

> All compatible with each other, no need for extra heavy weight
> signalling like you would need with RSVP-TE for path engineering.

> Cheers,
> R.