Continuing with my comments on draft-decraene-mpls-slid-encoded-entropy-label-id

Hi Bruno, et al.
Thank you for presenting this work at the MPLS Open DT meeting today. Below
please find the summary of my comments and questions with the additional
thoughts that came after we've closed the call. I greatly appreciate the
consideration and opinions of the authors and the group.

   - Compatibility with nodes that support only RFC 6790.
      - If the proposed indicators are used to signal the presence of an
      ISD, that seems to create a problem for an RFC6790-only node as it might
      not be able to process the ISD.
      - If one of the indicators is to be used to signal the presence of
      the extension, that, similarly to the scenario above, might not be
      correctly processed by an RFC6790-only node.
   - Scaling
      - If the proposed method to signal the ancillary data is used in, for
      example, a strict explicit routing environment, the Entropy Label is not
      needed. If that is the case, using the indicators, as described in the
      draft, seems to waste 20 bits in a label element compared to the
mechanism
      proposed in draft-kompella-mpls-mspl4fa.

Regards,
Greg

_______________________________________________
Pals mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pals