Hi, We understand it's impossible to get a consensus on this proposal for now.
We think a productive way for us is to work with other participants off the list to reach a viable standard. Thanks to all comments you posted on the list for this draft, we got a number of valid points which deserve our further study . Best regards, Mingui & Zhou Peng >-----Original Message----- >From: L3VPN [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jeff Tantsura >Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 5:02 AM >To: Jakob Heitz; Zhoupeng (Jewpon) >Cc: [email protected]; UTTARO, JAMES; [email protected] >Subject: Re: Why we consider the method of "label sharing for fast PE >protection" > >+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 >>>
