We did once, Cf is right.
The reason we transition to per-box after 4.2 was:
1. It is more scalable for LDP to deal with per-box labels
than per-interface labels. RSVP couldn't care less.
2. For some application (like Cisco's fast reroute), you need
per-box label to make it work.
However, we may still go back to per-interface labels any time
as applications need. There is at least one advantage
with per-interface label. It provides better security, you
can discard packets coming in from wrong interfaces.
>
> >X-JNPR-Received-From: outside
> >Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 15:39:28 -0400
> >X-From_: cf_list@excite.com Tue Jul 3 15:39:28 2001
> >Old-Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 12:39:16 -0700 (PDT)
> >From: Chas Flores <cf_list@excite.com>
> >To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> >Subject: label space <MPLS implementation>
> >X-Mailer: Excite Inbox
> >X-Sender-Ip: 64.217.72.18
> >Old-X-Envelope-To: juniper-nsp
> >Resent-From: jared@puck.nether.net
> >Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 15:44:08 -0400
> >Resent-To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> >X-Mailing-List: <juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net> archive/latest/88
> >X-Loop: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> >Resent-Sender: juniper-nsp-request@puck.nether.net
> >
> >I was reading the Juniper MPLS documentation and found the following:
> >
> >1. Juniper supported per-interface label space allocation until Junos
> >release 4.2.
> >2. Juniper now supports per-platform label space allocation only (since
> >release 4.2).
> >
> >Can you tell me why Juniper decided to make this change? Was there a
> >specific application, operations or marketing need? I have been studying the
> >pros and cons of per-interface versus per-platform label space and would
> >like to understand Juniper's point of view. I would love to hear from a
> >Juniper marketing or developer representative.
> >
> >Regards.
> >
> >Cf
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________________
> >Send a cool gift with your E-Card
> >http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 05 2002 - 10:42:39 EDT