Re: [Status] Status of Spring

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

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.

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

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

Cheers,
R.