uot; , Jeff Tantsura
, Stephane Litkowski ,
"m...@ietf.org"
Cc: "lsr@ietf.org" , "p...@ietf.org"
Subject: Re: [Lsr] [mpls] Comments on draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label
Hi Xiaohu,
The IGP drafts define MSD as a framework that enable advertisements for variou
[Xiaohu] Yes there is no need for them to advertise the ELC. However, there is
a need for them to advertise the capability of reading the maximum label stack
depth and performing EL-based load-balancing, if I understood it correctly.
IMHO, it seems better that the ELC and the ERLD are defined as
Hi Xiaohu,
The IGP drafts define MSD as a framework that enable advertisements for various
type of SID limits – starting with the Base MSD Type – 1. You are referring to
this generic construct of MSD in the text you quote below. It is, however, the
Base MSD (type 1) which is aligned with the de
Hi Jeff,
Thanks for your clarification. IMHO, no matter the MSD information is provided
by whatever protocol, the semantics of the MSD itself should be unified in the
IETF community. Otherwise, it would introduce unnecessary confusion to
implementors and operators.
It said in the OSPF-MSD draf
Hi Stephane,
Thanks for your reply. Please see my response inline with [Xiaohu]
--
From:stephane.litkowski
Send Time:2018年7月6日(星期五) 06:19
To:徐小虎(义先) ; m...@ietf.org
Cc:lsr@ietf.org ; p...@ietf.org
Subject:RE: [mpls] Comments on dr
Hi,
Please see inline (MSD section).
Hope this clarifies, thanks!
Cheers,
Jeff
[jeff] both IGP drafts have identical description of the BMI-MSD:
“Base MPLS Imposition MSD (BMI-MSD) signals the total number of MPLS labels a
node is capable of imposing, including all service/tra
Hi,
Thanks for your comment.
Pls find some inline replies
Brgds,
Stephane
From: mpls [mailto:mpls-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ???(??)
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2018 05:34
To: m...@ietf.org
Cc: lsr@ietf.org; p...@ietf.org
Subject: [mpls] Comments on draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label
Hi all
