Subject: RE: [PWE3] MPLS PID

From: Shahram Davari <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 10:58:10 -0800

>Unsignaled E-LSPs seems to be the most widespread.  ECMP is being used
>on them.  

If you meant EXP bits are taken to account during ECMP, then that could
reorder the microflows, because in E-LSP the EXP represents both PSC and
drop precedence. 

If you didn't mean that, then putting PID in the EXP would not cause any reordering.
Off course there would be some issues if the bottom label is of uniform model.

-Shahram

---

From: George Swallow <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 14:41:04 -0500

> Off course there would be some issues if the bottom label is of uniform model.

This alone is enough to prevent us from trying to redefine a deployed
standard.

...George

==================================================================
George Swallow       Cisco Systems                  (978) 936-1398
                     250 Apollo Drive
                     Chelmsford, Ma 01824

---

From: Curtis Villamizar <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 16:53:47 -0500

In message <[email-masked].
> reorder the microflows, because in E-LSP the EXP represents both PSC and

No I don't mean that.  ECMP is being used on E-LSP.  ECMP is not
considering EXP.

> Off course there would be some issues if the bottom label is of uniform model

The EXP bits are already being used on unsignaled E-LSPs.  E-LSPs are
widespread.  They carry both IP and non-IP.  ECMP is applied to the
E-LSPs but do not consider the EXP bits since doing that would
obviously cause massive microflow reordering problems and deployments
don't do things incredibly stupid (for very long).

> -Shahram

Curtis