Subject: [mpls] draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-shared-labels-00

From: Alexander Okonnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2017 21:29:44 +0300

Hi authors,

The draft highlights benefits of proposed solution, but doesn't mention drawbacks. For example, in case of regular RSVP-TE LSP transit LSRs are able to perform conditioning of traffic of individual RSVP-TE LSP, thankfully to unique ingress labels of LSPs. I.e. for regular RSVP-TE LSPs incoming label is not only key for seeking ILM entry, but (optionally) is input for classifier as well.

Also, the draft points, as one of benefits, hitless re-routing nature. Regular RSVP-TE LSPs are also could be re-routed in hitless manner. RFC 3209 says that if two LSPs have the same ERO, common label can be assigned for them. So, this benefit is questionable.

Thanks.