Hi Quan RFC 8662 talks about many interesting and creative ways to reduce the size of the label stack.
Section 4 talks about ERLD and then 7.2.1 talks about ERLD value computation. I think it maybe good to mention what is discussed in both section 4 and 7.2.1. Your draft does not use ERLD and uses ELP so I think explaining why ERLD computation is not necessary specifically when using ELP flag. Thanks <http://www.verizon.com/> *Gyan Mishra* *Network Solutions A**rchitect * *Email gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com <gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com>* *M 301 502-1347* On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 10:53 PM <xiong.q...@zte.com.cn> wrote: > > Hi Gyan, > > > Thanks for your comments! This is a good question. > > > From my understanding, RFC8662 did not describe the ERLD computation is > required but specifuies that the ingress " should try to insert the minimum > number of such pairs". > > Also as suggested by Andrew, the explaination will be added in section 3 > as the following shown. > > > "As described in [RFC8662], the ELRD value is an important consideration > when inserting ELI/EL and the minimum ELRD must be evaluated for each node > along a computed path. This necessary step adds additional complexity in > the ELI/EL insertion process and it may not be feasible for an ingress > router to compute the appropriate ERLD for each node in the path, since a > SR-MPLS path may contain segments the ingress router can resolve such as > inter-domain scenarios." > > > It will be updated in the next version. Hope that could address your > concern. Thanks! > > > Best Regards, > > Quan > > > Original > *From: *GyanMishra <hayabusa...@gmail.com> > *To: *Dhruv Dhody <d...@dhruvdhody.com>; > *Cc: *draft-peng-pce-entropy-label-posit...@ietf.org < > draft-peng-pce-entropy-label-posit...@ietf.org>;pce@ietf.org > <pce@ietf.org>;pce-chairs > <pce-cha...@ietf.org>; > *Date: *2024年02月06日 11:12 > *Subject: **Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of > draft-peng-pce-entropy-label-position-10* > > I reviewed the draft and support WG adoption. > > I believe this ELP PCE capability extension maybe helpful in determining > the position to place the ELI. EL label. According to RFC 8662 a {ELI,EL} > label must be placed after every SID in the sid list based on the ERLD. I > maybe a good idea to explain why computing the ERLD would add complexity in > the ELI/EL insertion process and why a new mechanism using the ELP is > necessary. Also why the ERLD computation is not required as described in > RFC 8662. > > Thanks > > Gyan > > <http://www.verizon.com/> > > *Gyan Mishra* > > *Network Solutions A**rchitect * > > *Email gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com <gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com>* > > > > *M 301 502-1347* > > > > On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 11:50 AM Dhruv Dhody <d...@dhruvdhody.com> wrote: > >> Hi WG, >> >> This email begins the WG adoption poll for >> draft-peng-pce-entropy-label-position-10 >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-peng-pce-entropy-label-position/ >> >> Should this draft be adopted by the PCE WG? Please state your reasons - >> Why / Why not? What needs to be fixed before or after adoption? Are you >> willing to work on this draft? Review comments should be posted to the list. >> >> Please respond by Monday 12th Feb 2024. >> >> Please be more vocal during WG polls! >> >> Thanks! >> Dhruv & Julien >> _______________________________________________ >> Pce mailing list >> Pce@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce >> > >
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
