+1 You could look into 4761 which took a similar approach.
Cheers, Jeff -----Original Message----- From: Jakob Heitz <[email protected]> Date: Friday, November 29, 2013 10:05 AM To: "Zhoupeng (Jewpon)" <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "UTTARO, JAMES" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Why we consider the method of "label sharing for fast PE protection" >When you allocate a label range, you must allocate more than you need for >room to grow. This could cause you to use 2 to 10 times as many labels as >you would were you to allocate the labels individually. > >In addition, once a label range runs out, you have to find a new range >and possibly rearrange your existing ranges to make room. Once that >happens, you will cause a lot of network churn when you change thousands >of labels. > >-- >Jakob Heitz. > > >On Nov 29, 2013, at 1:09 AM, "Zhoupeng (Jewpon)" <[email protected]> >wrote: > >> " The labels amount needed will not significant increase due to the >>draft ". >> >> regards， >> Zhou Peng >>
