Hi Jakob,
There are three ways, 1. Always, this label can be configured. 2. We do have a companion draft to realize this. Please look at http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zhang-pwe3-iccp-label-sharing-00 . We already presented this draft in pwe3. (Let me copy this track to the pwe3 mailing list.) With the ICCP connection established, PEs can negotiate this label. 2. The last choice is to use a global label if it was supported. Thanks, Mingui ________________________________ From: Jakob Heitz [[email protected]] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 5:50 To: Mingui Zhang; [email protected] Subject: RE: Why we consider the method of "label sharing for fast PE protection" Several people at the mike asked this question: How do you make sure that the PEs allocate the same label? This needs to be part of the document, because it is quite important. If an external entity allocates the labels, the protocol between the PEs and that entity needs to be standardized. Since this is a feature that provides redundancy, the label allocating entity also needs to be backed up by a redundant entity. The protocol between the redundant label allocators needs to be standardized. -- Jakob Heitz. ________________________________ From: [email protected] [[email protected]] on behalf of Mingui Zhang [[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, 07 November 2013 11:40 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Why we consider the method of "label sharing for fast PE protection" Hi, As a choice of fast PE protection, 1. This solution is simple and light-weight. We need not introduce the complex context label table in PE routers. So label table need not be stored repeatedly on RG members. 2. Also, it’s easy to be deployed. It does not bring any change to P routers (control plane & data plane). It even does not change the data plane of PE routers. 3. In addition, it does not bear the restriction of “no penultimate-hop-popping”. Thanks, Mingui
