[j-nsp] Interface Label space for L2VPN PW

[Tomasz Szewczyk]

Hi Monika,

RFC 4447 says "Note that the PW label must always be at the bottom of 
the packet's label stack, and labels MUST be allocated from the 
per-platform label space." So I think we shouldn't use per-interface labels.
The RFC says also " When PE2 receives a packet over a pseudowire, it 
must be able to determine that the packet was in fact received over a 
pseudowire, and it must be able to associate that packet with a 
particular pseudowire."

In my opinion it is better to use per-platform labels for example in 
networks implementing fast re-route. In that case the packets form PW 
can be received on different interfaces (depending on network state). 
Probably it is easier to build and maintain FEC. I think choosing 
per-interface or per-platform label space is not scaling problem too, 
because it has no influence on FEC size. As far as I'm concerned if 
multiple paths exists between PEs, the per-platform label space is 
closer to "per-peer".

Regards

Tomek

Monika M pisze:
> IETF-56 mpls minute's interop (ISOCORE) testing report claims following
> point as one of the interop issue
>
> "Some vendors were advertising per-interface label space for targeted LDP
> sessions when they should have been using per-platform labels due to an
> ambiguity in the Martini signaling draft"
>
> Does that mean we can never use per-interface label space for PW label?
> Can't we see "per-interface" as "per-peer" in L2VPN? (i.e) Use of same label
> for two peers for scalability? May be we need extra intelligence in
> hardware.!!!
>
>
> Regards,
> Monika.
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>
>   


-- 
Tomasz Szewczyk
Poznan Supercomputing and Networking Center
e-mail: tomeks at man.poznan.pl

fax: +48 61 8525954