The MPLS WG Archive

[Alia Atlas <aatlas@avici.com>]

George,

At 07:27 PM 3/2/2005, George Swallow wrote:
> > At the time of the OAM label discussion, it was suggested that future
> > implementations shouldn't include the reserved labels in any
> > processing of the label stack done for load balancing.   Perhaps we
> > don't want to capture that here - the idea seemed a bit sensitive at
> > the time - though I'd be in favor of it.
>
>The C in BCP is for current.  As this is a future suggestion, and a can
>of worms to boot, I think I'll pass.

I agree that it is a can of worms and I'm not advocating making it a should 
or implying that it is generally a current behavior.  At the same time, I'd 
prefer not to lose knowledge of the issue.

Perhaps something simple for a hint such as:
"The processing of the label stack for load balancing may include all MPLS 
labels, including those that are reserved; in such a case, the addition of 
a reserved label, such as the OAM label, may result in a different path 
being taken."

That provides the hint both that most current hardware includes the 
reserved labels and that if it didn't, then OAM might be easier.

What do you think?

Alia


_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls