The MPLS WG Archive[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index] your mail
Naidu, out-of-order packets ARE a worry to vendor implementations (regardless of IP or MPLS), even though higher layers take care of that. What you're suggesting has a high potential of misordering EVERY flow encapsulated in MPLS - this would instantly degrade end-to-end performance by tens of percents. Also, the fact that a certain vendor got such bad publicity (IMO unjustly, even though I'm from a competing company) when they misordered packet flows on OC192 links should make you reconsider. -- Amir Hermelin <mailto:amir@cwnt.com> Charlotte's Web Networks Inc. <http://www.cwnt.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: Naidu, Venkata [mailto:Venkata.Naidu@Marconi.com] > Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 9:49 PM > To: 'Vach Kompella'; Gibson, Mark; mpls@UU.NET; Gray, Eric > Subject: RE: your mail > > > Vach, > > -> For ECMP, you have to look at least one label lower (or more > -> precisely, one layer higher). > > Why? It is very difficult to look at the payload of MPLS > packets the way the encapsulations are defined. > > So, a router trying to do load balancing have to know > the X in XoverMPLS (all the PPP exts, LLC encapsulations RFCs etc). > Very unrealistic... > > Why can't we do something simple like this: > > If I know what the LSP semantics are, then I enable > load balancing on that LSP - with or with out hashing. > With out hashing, I do simple round robin 1 to N > scheduler (no state, nothing). Even weighted round > robin also you can do. > > The semantics for that LSP can be: > - don't worry about out-of-order packets (higher layers > will take care of it) > - don't worry about X in XoverMPLS - don't even look > at it. > - don't do ECMP if EXP bits are set > etc etc... > > Why are you thinking that load balancing or ECMP is > a router option. You can have it as per LSP option as well. > Just like ECMP for per destination address/flow. > > When we know what we are doing then the problems will be minimal. > > Do you agree? > > -- > Venkata. > |
|