From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:kireeti@...]
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 5:22 PM
To: Rajeev Manur
Cc: shane@...; mpls@... Subject: Re: MPLS entropy : clarification on the need for ELI
On Apr 13, 2012, at 16:02, "Rajeev Manur" <rmanur@...> wrote:
> Q2 : If yes, have we looked at other possible ways of working around the problem. For example if such LSRs are capable of inserting at least 2 labels, then we should be able to program such boxes to add second dummy label (EL="fixed value").
The problem is only partly "can it?". Even if it could, it doesn't at present. So, if you upgrade one LER to do ELs, no one else can talk to it until they too are upgraded. All-or-nothing upgrade policies are not the best way to make friends with network operators :-)
[Rajeev] Agreed. Thanks for the clarification. It would be gr8 if we can capture this reasoning of "incremental deployment" as the key reason for using ELI label approach for LSPs.