The MPLS WG Archive

[Don Fedyk <dwfedyk@nortelnetworks.com>]

Tom

You can have MPLS Load balancing that :
1) Follows a predictable algorithm (for a reasonable duration) on each 
box based on some header fields.
2) Does not use fields that overlap with prescribed fields in the draft 
(Reserved label, Stack bit etc.).
3) Follows an identical, globally the same, (and hence predictable and 
repeatable)  algorithm on each box.

(1) is what we have today.
(1) plus (2) are what we would recommend. (and even might be on some 
boxes today).
(2) plus (3) is overkill (and impractical to deploy and is restrictive). 
I think we agree nobody is saying this one.

Don

Allan, David [CAR:NS00:EXCH] wrote:

> Tom:
>
> Not entirely true, any point where there is useful predictability 
> reduces the number of possible faults that may only be caught by 
> random process. IMHO that is useful.
>
> cheers
> Dave
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Thomas D. Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@cisco.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 10:59 AM
> > To: Fedyk, Don [BL60:1A00:EXCH]
> > Cc: George Swallow; Fedyk, Don [BL60:1A00:EXCH]; Allan, David
> > [CAR:NS00:EXCH]; Alia Atlas; Shahram Davari; 'MPLS@UU.net'
> > Subject: Re: Load balancing draft
> >
> >
> >
> > >George
> > >
> > >Let me restate. You Said "All load balancing done in
> > prescribed manner."
> > >Which is certainly restrictive. The Draft for load balancing
> > says  not to
> > >use certain fields. That is not the same. So I added different
> > >implementations for load balancing following the draft still
> > have freedoms
> > >and different vendors can choose different algorithms.
> >
> >          Not really. If you want things to work the way the
> > draft aspires
> > them to, then everyone in the MPLS domain must use the same,
> > predictable load balancing algorithm.  Going halfway doesn't work,
> > and is arguably no better than what we have today.
> >
> >          --Tom
> >
> >
> > >Hope that makes it clear,
> > >Don .
>
<snip>