Hi Robert, Colby addressed some of your points, but there are a few more.
>>>> Do you plan to support PE-CE link congestion by use of PE-CE protection in >>>> case of multihomed customer sites ? >> We support this on all links. > > Very interesting ... > > You know what this means for PE-CE ... you need to take traffic back to your > core, carry it to another PE then try to see if it fits the PE-CE links. If that’s the computed bypass path, then yes, we would ECMP onto it. > And what if it does not ? Then it gets dropped, due to congestion. You’re no worse off than before as the primary path was congesting. > And you do swap a service label (for example L3VPN) ? We’re doing whatever the forwarding technology does for bypass paths. >> Conceptually, this can also be done on MPLS LSPs equally. Entropy labels >> are recommended. > > Entropy on FRR path ? Entropy because we would be doing ECMP between the FRR and primary paths. >> If the only traffic on the link are elephant flows without any kind of >> entropy or distribution, then TTE is not recommended. The prefix/label >> selection algorithm at this point is random and relies on the Law of Large >> Numbers to select prefixes/labels. Pragmatically that suggests that a link >> should be carrying at least 50 flows with a Gaussian distribution of >> bandwidth demands. > > Again if you would do it for internet IP plain forwarding I would perhaps > give it some chances to help. But for all tunneled networks I am remaining > quite sceptical here - sorry. We welcome your skepticism and ask only that you retain an open mind. Tony
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
