Acee, I agree with your statement. We (MSD DE’s) have OKed temporary allocation. I believe WGLC would be in place.
Regards, Jeff > On Aug 28, 2019, at 14:30, Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Uma, > > The draft states that an explicit ERLD is required. I’m not a forwarding ASIC > expert so I can’t envision all the trade-offs but I certainly don’t see much > risk in continuing with the ERLD as this has been in the drafts for some time. > > All, > > I’d like to Working Group Last Call these drafts as I believe they are ready > and we even have some implementation momentum. Anyone disagree? > > Thanks, > Acee > > From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[email protected]> > Date: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 4:59 PM > To: Acee Lindem <[email protected]>, Uma Chunduri <[email protected]>, > "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: RE: [Lsr] draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-07 > > Point taken… > > Les > > From: Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 1:56 PM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]>; Uma Chunduri > <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-07 > > Les, > > Then what you meant in your response was, “generic RLD” as opposed to > “generic MSD”. > > Thanks, > Acee > > > > > From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[email protected]> > Date: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 4:46 PM > To: Acee Lindem <[email protected]>, Uma Chunduri <[email protected]>, > "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: RE: [Lsr] draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-07 > > Acee – > > I do understand the question – and I believe the reference I cited provides > the answer. You need to read the referenced draft. > > If you have a cogent argument why it is safe to assume that the combination > of actions required to support EL translate to any other type of activity > that might be required on a label stack, please make it. Then Uma’s > suggestion might make sense. > > Les > > From: Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 1:34 PM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]>; Uma Chunduri > <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-07 > > Hi Les, > I think the question is whether there can be a single RLD depth MSD rather > than a RLD solely for entropy label discovery. > Thanks, > Acee > > From: Lsr <[email protected]> on behalf of "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" > <[email protected]> > Date: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 4:29 PM > To: Uma Chunduri <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-07 > > Uma – > > Please read > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label-12#section-4 > > In short, we do not assume that EL Load Balancing can be performed for > generic MSD. > > Thanx. > > Les > > > From: Lsr <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Uma Chunduri > Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 11:38 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [Lsr] draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-07 > > Can anybody tell what was the conclusion (if any) in previous discussions in > various WGs on why the readable label depth in an LSR has to be entropy label > specific ? > > IOW can we just modify this as “readable label depth” as opposed to “entropy > readable label depth” ? > This would allow any other special purpose label inserted in the stack and > would be at par with current MSD type “Base MPLS Imposition MSD” ( > https://www.iana.org/assignments/igp-parameters/igp-parameters.xhtml ).. > > > -- > Uma C. > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
