Hello Uma,
what kind of label depth discussion are you thinking of?
It seems to me this could easily become an endless discussion again.
People seem to have very different views on it. Thus I'm not sure
whether it would be suitable for this document.
BTW:
For my needs, bandwidth optimization is one of the major use cases for
all traffic engineering technologies such as SR or RSVP.
We are currently supporting scientific university research about this,
and first results give strong confirmation that for bandwidth
optimization in real world networks you rarely need more than 1
additional segment. Or rather, the additional efficiency gained by using
mor than 1 additional segment is very small. We compare a global real
backbone network with current routing, theoretical MCF optimization and
realistic optimization with 1 (or 2 or 3) additional traffic engineering
segments (aka 2-SR, 3-SR, 4-SR).
Thus, from my point of view, an SR optimized network would typically
have the same label stack depth as a similarily RSVP optimized network
in some places, and a smaller label stack for the overall average .
All other use-cases I found of serious interest so far all work with 1
additional segment (i.e. label) at most.
Best regards, Martin
Am 27.01.17 um 20:59 schrieb Uma Chunduri:
Support.
One quick comment:
While section 3 correctly documents MPLS instantiation of SR - given the
constructs SR has (ADJ SID for example) it's good to document SID/Label depth
implications in the deployments.
--
Uma C.
-----Original Message-----
From: spring [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Martin Vigoureux
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2017 3:05 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: [spring] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-06
Hello Working Group,
This email starts a 2-week Working Group Last Call on
draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-06 [1].
¤ Please read the document if you haven't read the most recent version yet, and
send your comments to the list, no later than the *12th of February*.
Note that this is *not only* a call for comments on the document; it is also a
call for support (or not) to publish this document as a Proposed Standard RFC.
¤ We have already polled for IPR knowledge on this document and all Authors
have replied.
IPR exists against this document and has been disclosed [2].
Thank you
M&B
---
[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls/
[2]
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
