[trimming To/CC list]
Thanks, Aldrin!
More inline.
On Sep 25, 2012, at 21:23, Aldrin Isaac <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 1) I would suggest *not* altering the semantics of the MPLS label in the BGP
>> route.
Note that no one is suggesting altering the semantics of an MPLS label. What's
proposed is altering the interpretation of a three-byte field in the NLRI.
>> Instead, use the route distinguisher to carry the 24-bit VNID (this
>> is arguably better since the semantics of the RD align better with the
>> semantics of the VNID). I would suggest encoding this as a type 0 RD, with
>> the VNID going into the Assigned number sub-field. In addition, call out
>> that an MPLS label value of 0 in the BGP route is a valid value, and will be
>> used by PEs which do not support MPLS encap.
>
> The RD was not intended to be used to signal data plane bits. That's
> what the label field is for.
Exactly. Worse than that, the RD is responsible for _distinguishing_ routes. If
VNIDs are locally generated (an option well worth holding on to), all manner of
hell will break loose.
Kireeti
_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
