The MPLS WG Archive[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index] Correction of Explicit Null specification in RFC 3032
David> I would agree that if there is a mess already deployed, clarification David> is required Yes, there is a mess already deployed. David> If you want to offer a common label for all FECs to a peer for David> whatever reason, it does not need to be a reserved label. Using a reserved label eliminates the need to look up the label in a large table; instead you can spend your time looking up the label (or address) beneath it. David> Having multiple reserved labels with forwarding semantics dependent David> on the 's' bit ... Whenever a label invokes the "pop the stack" label operation, the forwarding semantics are dependent on the s bit. David> ... can only complicate life Generally the hardware guys can figure out how to do a comparison to a constant without introducing undue complexity ;-) David> We seem to be going down the road where the first nybble of the David> payload is becoming significant and permits v4/v6 and other traffic David> to be distinguished without requiring unique reserved labels to David> identify the traffic. If you're suggesting that we only need one value of "IP explicit null", I think that is worth considering.
|
|