What you are trying to achieve can be done with Ctxt labels using locally assigned labels. So no need for global labels.
On 19/07/13 11:01, "Mingui Zhang" <[email protected]> wrote: >Hi Nagendra, > >It can also be automatically negotiated through signaling among those >egress PEs. I have composed the following draft for this point. >ICCP Application TLVs for VPN Route Label Sharing - Mingui ZHANG >http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-zhang-pwe3-iccp-label-sharing-00.txt > >Thanks, >Mingui > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Nagendra Kumar (naikumar) [mailto:[email protected]] >>Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 4:55 PM >>To: Mingui Zhang; [email protected] >>Subject: RE: New Version Notification for >>draft-zhang-l3vpn-label-sharing-00.txt >> >>Hi, >> >>Thanks. Is the proposal is to manually assign/configure in each PE?. >> >>-Nagendra >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Mingui Zhang [mailto:[email protected]] >>Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 2:21 PM >>To: Nagendra Kumar (naikumar); [email protected] >>Subject: RE: New Version Notification for >>draft-zhang-l3vpn-label-sharing-00.txt >> >>Hi Nagendra, >> >>In the method, the egress PEs in the RG have to use the same VPN route >>label >>for one VPN site (e.g., 1100 for VPN1). >>As for the prefix, all prefixes (e.g., 10.1.1.0/24) learnt from this VPN >>site will be >>stored in the corresponding VRF (e.g., VPN1' VPN instance) identified by >>the VPN >>route label. >> >>I guess you propose to share the label "per-prefix". It's possible to do >>so but not >>as common as the "per-VRF" assignment in current practice. >> >>Thanks, >>Mingui >> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: Nagendra Kumar (naikumar) [mailto:[email protected]] >>>Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 4:15 PM >>>To: Mingui Zhang; [email protected] >>>Subject: RE: New Version Notification for >>>draft-zhang-l3vpn-label-sharing-00.txt >>> >>>Hi Mingui, >>> >>>I couldn¹t see any point mentioned in this draft on how egress PEs will >>>assign same VPN label for the prefix. >>> >>>Can you please share the same?. Sorry, if I am missing something in the >>>doc. >>> >>>Regards, >>>nagendra >>> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf >>>Of Mingui Zhang >>>Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 1:16 PM >>>To: [email protected] >>>Subject: FW: New Version Notification for >>>draft-zhang-l3vpn-label-sharing-00.txt >>> >>>Dear all, >>> >>>We have submitted a new draft: Label Sharing for Fast PE Protection. >>> >>> This draft designs a simple method to be used by SPs to achieve fast >>>PE protection, utilizing the deployment of redundant egress PEs. >>> >>>Comments are welcome. >>> >>>Regards, >>>Mingui >>> >>>>-----Original Message----- >>> >>>A new version of I-D, draft-zhang-l3vpn-label-sharing-00.txt >>>has been successfully submitted by Mingui Zhang and posted to the IETF >>>repository. >>> >>>Filename: draft-zhang-l3vpn-label-sharing >>>Revision: 00 >>>Title: Label Sharing for Fast PE Protection >>>Creation date: 2013-07-12 >>>Group: Individual Submission >>>Number of pages: 12 >>>URL: >>>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-zhang-l3vpn-label-sharing-00. >>>txt >>>Status: >>>http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zhang-l3vpn-label-sharing >>>Htmlized: >>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zhang-l3vpn-label-sharing-00 >>> >>> >>>Abstract: >>> This document describes a method to be used by Service Providers to >>> provide fast protection of VPN connections for a CE. Egress PEs in a >>> redundant group always assign the same label for VPN routes from a >>> VRF. These egress PEs create a BGP virtual Next Hop (vNH) in the >>> domain of the IP/MPLS backbone network as an agent of the CE router. >>> Primary and backup tunnels terminated at the vNH are set up by the >>> BGP/MPLS IP VPN based on IGP FRR. If the primary egress PE fails, the >>> backup egress PEs can recognize the "shared" VPN route label and >>> deliver the failure affected packets accordingly. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>The IETF Secretariat
