Hi Rob,
> > It introduces a requirement, where failure detection is required, to run N > different OAM probes to be able to monitor reachability (one for each > Node-SID assigned to the remote device - even in cases where we have 1 > available path). > When you get today /24 IP prefix do you monitor reachability to all 255 host addresses within this prefix or to the next hop which advertised it ? Likewise when you get a block of SID monitoring OEM to the node which advertised it seems sufficient to me. I assume there is still IGP there and router_id or s-bfd. Comparing two options it seems that mpls hardware is to much faster support match on subset of MPLS label bits vs ability to look over long chain of labels for ELI/EL. I think the question for the MPLS WG here is whether there is any appetite > to introduce a new means by which entropy in MPLS networks is introduced. > We already have Entropy Label which has been published and implemented. The > question to me seems to be why we need anything else. Fewer solutions seems > optimal :-) > Of course fewer is better provided that: a) fewer works b) is architecturally sound Moreover SID/label block vs entropy labels is not apple to apple comparison. Former is just control plane solution, does not insert anything extra into each packet while latter is based on data plane modifications and new hardware support to either handle Eiffel Tower of label stack or tricks with search along the stack for ELI/EL tupel(s). Cheers, R.
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
