Subject: RE: Why we consider the method of "label sharing for fast PE protection"

From: Mingui Zhang <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 01:38:11 +0000

Hi,

We understand it's impossible to get a consensus on this proposal for now. 

We think a productive way for us is to work with other participants off the list to reach a viable standard.

Thanks to all comments you posted on the list for this draft, we got a number of valid points which deserve our further study .

Best regards,
Mingui & Zhou Peng

>-----Original Message-----
>From: L3VPN [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Jeff Tantsura
>Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 5:02 AM
>To: Jakob Heitz; Zhoupeng (Jewpon)
>Cc: [email-masked]; UTTARO, JAMES; [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: Why we consider the method of "label sharing for fast PE
>protection"
>
>+1
>
>You could look into 4761 which took a similar approach.
>
>Cheers,
>Jeff
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jakob Heitz <[email-masked]>
>Date: Friday, November 29, 2013 10:05 AM
>To: "Zhoupeng (Jewpon)" <[email-masked]>
>Cc: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "UTTARO,
>JAMES" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
>Subject: Re: Why we consider the method of "label sharing for fast PE
>protection"
>
>>When you allocate a label range, you must allocate more than you need
>>for room to grow. This could cause you to use 2 to 10 times as many
>>labels as you would were you to allocate the labels individually.
>>
>>In addition, once a label range runs out, you have to find a new range
>>and possibly rearrange your existing ranges to make room. Once that
>>happens, you will cause a lot of network churn when you change
>>thousands of labels.
>>
>>--
>>Jakob Heitz.
>>
>>
>>On Nov 29, 2013, at 1:09 AM, "Zhoupeng (Jewpon)"
>><[email-masked]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>  " The labels amount needed will not significant increase due to the
>>>draft ".
>>>
>>> regards，
>>> Zhou Peng
>>>