Hi Jorge,
> > +----------+----------+----------+------------+----------------+
> > | ESI | GW-IP | MAC* | Label | Overlay Index |
> > |--------------------------------------------------------------|
> > | Non-Zero | Zero | Zero | Don't Care | ESI |
> > | Non-Zero | Zero | Non-Zero | Don't Care | ESI |
> > | Zero | Non-Zero | Zero | Don't Care | GW-IP |
> > | Zero | Zero | Non-Zero | Zero | MAC |
> > | Zero | Zero | Non-Zero | Non-Zero | MAC or None** |
> > | Zero | Zero | Zero | Non-Zero | None(IP NVO)***|
> > +----------+----------+----------+------------+----------------+
> >
> > The fifth row is like a variation of the fourth row; why isn't
> there a
> > corresponding variation for each of the first three rows? The following
> > paragraph mentioned earlier seems to apply to all situations.
> > [JORGE] in rows 4 and 5, the label value 0 or non-0 has a meaning. In
> the
> first
> > three rows, the label doesn’t have any meaning.
>
> Can you elaborate on "the label does not have any meaning", especially for
> row #2?
> [JORGE] since an overlay index is used, a recursive resolution is needed.
> Hence
> the label is not used to forward packets. “Don’t Care” means a valid 0 or non-
> zero label value should be ignored.
>
But Row 4/5 is the same - there is a MAC address as overlay index, so:
- either we "don’t care" the label for row 4/5 and just use overlay index, or
- do the same with for rows 1/2/3 as with rows 4/5 and do label based
forwarding based on local policy
I'm just curious why there is a difference?
Thanks.
Jeffrey
_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
