The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2002-May> msg00268



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]  
  [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index]

Basic LDP Question

  • From: Robert Raszuk <raszuk@cisco.com>
  • Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 21:34:20 +0200
  • CC: Shahram Davari <Shahram_Davari@pmc-sierra.com>, "'Giles Heron'" <giles@packetexchange.net>, "'Yakov Rekhter'" <yakov@juniper.net>, "'mpls@uu.net'" <mpls@UU.NET>, "'ppvpn@ppvpn.francetelecom.com'" <ppvpn@ppvpn.francetelecom.com>
  • Organization: Signature: http://www.employees.org/~raszuk/sig/

Hu Juha,

Currently deployed hardware & software. Besides the whole beauty to use
pure IP encapsulation is that P boxes just do IP forwarding and don't
have to do anything special. Clearly taking into account l2tp session
does not meet those conditions.

R.

> jh@lohi.eng.song.fi wrote:
> 
> Robert Raszuk writes:
> 
>  > C) Loadbalancing in the core ... See when you encapsulate all of your
>  > PE-PE traffic in one IP header, the FIB hash will be identical to all
>  > VPN customers residing on those PEs hence all the packets will take the
>  > same path. This is very bad indeed. In MPLS we can build the hash based
>  > on labels or even look higher at the original VPN IP packet so the
>  > distribution of VPN flows in the core is much more larger.
> 
> what would prevent you from taking into account l2tp session id when
> calculating the hash?
> 
> -- juha