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
