Subject: Re: Why we consider the method of "label sharing for fast PE protection"

From: Robert Raszuk <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 20:25:23 +0100

Indeed.

To summarize my former comments:

- Proposal works only with per VRF label not per CE and per prefix ..
Last two label allocation modes are the most popular today - not sure
if all operators are ready to switch to per vrf label.

- Allocation has to be either manual - configuration (just like RT
configuration) assuming multi-homed sites are connected to those PEs
which do share common label space

or

- PE must ask (or be told) some form of central controller (PCE like)
which label to allocate for a given VPN.

To summarize I think we already have solution to this problem space
with using context labels (provides 1:N PE protection scheme which
this proposal does not) hence I would rather not continue further with
this proposal.

Interested vendors can still provide a local option to configure per
vrf VPN label, but this is rather not something L3VPN or IETF should
standardize or ack.

If there is protocol work required to communicate labels from central
allocation pool (both push and pool model) I would rather suggest this
to be written as a separate spec and discussed in I2RS WG.
Applicability of such protocol may be perhaps useful beyond this
particular PE protection application.

Best,
R.

On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 7:52 PM, UTTARO, JAMES <[email-masked]> wrote:
> IMO solutions need to be deployable.. So, I would like to see some text describing how this solution would work in a real network.
>
> Jim Uttaro