Hi Gyan,
Thanks for your reply!
The ELP computation is to compute the positions of the ELI/ELs which need to be
inserted into the label stack and the computation should using the ERLD as an
input parameter which can help to minimize the number of required ELI/EL pairs
to be inserted.
Agree with you, the section 4 and 7.2.1 should be mentioned in section 3.
Would it be better as following shown？Thanks!
"[RFC8662] proposes to use entropy labels for SR-MPLS networks. The
Entropy Readable Label Depth (ERLD) is defined as the number of
labels which means that the router will perform load-balancing using
the ELI/EL in [RFC8662] section 4.
As described in [RFC8662] section 7.2.1, 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."
Best Regards,
Quan
Original
From: GyanMishra <hayabusa...@gmail.com>
To: 熊泉00091065;
Cc: d...@dhruvdhody.com
<d...@dhruvdhody.com>;draft-peng-pce-entropy-label-posit...@ietf.org
<draft-peng-pce-entropy-label-posit...@ietf.org>;pce@ietf.org
<pce@ietf.org>;pce-cha...@ietf.org <pce-cha...@ietf.org>;
Date: 2024年02月06日 12:59
Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-peng-pce-entropy-label-position-10
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
Gyan Mishra
Network Solutions Architect
Email 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
Gyan Mishra
Network Solutions Architect
Email 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
