Subject: Re: MPLS PID

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

> 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.

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].
ca>, Shahram Davari writes:
> >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. 

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