We are on the same page. I misinterpreted your :) I guess it could be done at small scale with certain restrictions. It's definitely not a generic solution.
-- Jakob Heitz. On Nov 18, 2013, at 7:59 AM, "Eric Osborne (eosborne)" <[email protected]> wrote: > Oh, yeah. I'm not actually proposing that there's a workable solution. I'm > trying to point out that there isn't one. > > The problem gets harder, too. > > PE1: VRF-A primary, VRF-B backup > PE2: VRF-B primary, VRF-C backup > PE3: VRF-C primary, VRF-A backup > > and so forth. > > > > > eric > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jakob Heitz [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 10:57 AM >> To: UTTARO, JAMES >> Cc: Eric Osborne (eosborne); Mingui Zhang; Stewart Bryant (stbryant); >> [email protected] >> Subject: Re: Why we consider the method of "label sharing for fast PE >> protection" >> >> "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 >>>
