That sounds doable ;) -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Eric Osborne (eosborne) Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 7:52 AM To: Mingui Zhang; Stewart Bryant (stbryant); Jakob Heitz; [email protected] Subject: RE: Why we consider the method of "label sharing for fast PE protection"
It's not just the range, right? You have to allocate the same label per VRF. So you either end up statically allocating labels or making sure you have the same label allocation algorithm on every pair of primary/backup PEs. eric > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of Mingui Zhang > Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 4:34 AM > To: Stewart Bryant (stbryant); Jakob Heitz; [email protected] > Subject: RE: Why we consider the method of "label sharing for fast PE > protection" > > Hi Stewart, > > Operators can configure the PEs in an RG to reserve the same label range > for sharing. > > With the ICCP connection established between the primary and backup PE, > the primary PE can mandate the sharing label range out of the > intersection of the unused label space. > > Thanks, > Mingui > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:[email protected]] > >Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 9:52 PM > >To: Jakob Heitz; Mingui Zhang; [email protected] > >Subject: Re: Why we consider the method of "label sharing for fast PE > >protection" > > > >Isn't the normal problem that the two systems will be independently > allocating > >labels from their default label table, possibly with different hardware > base and > >range, so there may not be a common label available that can be > allocated by > >both. > > > >- Stewart > > > >On 07/11/2013 21:50, Jakob Heitz wrote: > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > >-- > >For corporate legal information go to: > > > >http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html
