"same algorithm" is not good enough on its own. If two routers using the same algorithm boot up at different times and/or with different neighbors, they still won't allocate the same labels.
The algorithm cannot just be "same". It must be restricted in other ways. -- Jakob Heitz. On Nov 18, 2013, at 5:51 AM, "UTTARO, JAMES" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
