I think it's okay because as the PW crosses the ECMP-enabled IP/MPLS domain in the middle segment, you're no longer in an MPLS-TP environment and so the GAL is not required to be BOS. During that middle segment, the PW flow label would be placed below the GAL and above the GACh. It gets removed when it hits the S-PE that switches you back into the MPLS-TP environment. In other words, whether you're in an MPLS-TP environment is determined segment by segment in a MS-PW.
Pablo On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Alexander Vainshtein < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > After having sent out my comments I've noticed that the specific example to > illustrate the need to combine GAL and "flow label" was inaccurate. > > A more relevant example would look like following (I do not include a > diagram, but it can be easily provided if necessary) > > 1. A MS-PW: > - Starts at an S-PE that resides at the edge of an MPLS-TP domain > (no ECMP) > - Crosses this domain and enters an IP/MPLS domain with ECMP enabled > using a T-PE that resides at the age of these two domains > - Leaves this domain and enters a 2nd MPLS-TP domain (using the 2nd > T-PE) > - Terminates on another S-PE at the edge of the 2nd MPLS-TP domain > 2. The operator intends to improve traffic distribution in the IP/MPLS > domain, hence he enables insertion and discard of "flow labels" at the > two S-PEs. Note that: > - This does not violate the MPLS-TP restriction on ECMP: ECMP does > not happen in he MPLS-TP domains > - T-PEs do not even have to be aware of flow labels > 3. The operator also intends to operate some end-to-end OAM for this > MS-PW using "GAL-in-PW". This results in a conflict since both GAL and > "flow > label" are defined (in the corresponding drafts) as bottom of stack. > > > IMHO this describes a realistic scenario where the two drafts are in > controversy. > > Regards, > Sasha > ------------------------------ > *From:* [email protected] [[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Alexander Vainshtein [[email protected]] > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 16, 2011 4:26 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Cc:* [email protected]; Vladimir Kleiner; Idan Kaspit; Mishael Wexler; pwe3; > Oren Gal; John Shirron; Rotem Cohen > *Subject:* [mpls] IETF Last Call comment on draft-ietf-pwe3-gal-in-pw > > Hi all, > > > > I would like to raise the following issue with regard to > draft-ietf-pwe3-gal-in-pw<http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-tp-gal-in-pw/?include_text=1>: > controversy vs. > draft-ietf-pwe3-fat-pw<http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pwe3-fat-pw/?include_text=1>with > regard to bottom-of-stack position. > > > > As stated in the Introduction, this draft removes the restriction imposed > by RFC 5586 on usage of Generic Associated Channel Label (GAL) in PWs. The > corresponding text Section 4.2 of RFC 5586 states: > > In MPLS-TP, the GAL MUST be used with packets on a G-ACh on LSPs, > Concatenated Segments of LSPs, and with Sections, and MUST NOT be used with > PWs. It MUST always be at the bottom of the label stack (i.e., S bit set > to 1). > > > > draft-ietf-pwe3-gal-in-pw proposed to replace the original text in RFC 5586 > with the following > > > > In MPLS-TP, the GAL MUST be used with packets on a G-ACh on LSPs, > Concatenated Segments of LSPs, and with Sections, and MAY be used with PWs. > It MUST always be at the bottom of the label stack (i.e., S bit set to 1). > > > > I.e., while removing this restriction of 5586, it does not modify its > requirement for the GAL being always at the bottom of the label stack. > > > > At the same draft-ietf-pwe3-fat-pw (currently also in the IESG review) > reserves the bottom of the PW stack for the PW flow labels, e.g., in Section > 1.1: > > > > This document describes a method of adding an additional label stack entry > (LSE) at the bottom of stack in order to facilitate the load balancing of > the flows within a PW over the available ECMPs. > > > > One could argue that draft-ietf-pwe3-gal-in-pw only applies to MPLS-TP > pseudowires, and that MPLS-TP does not use ECMP. IMHO and FWIW, > > such an argument, were it presented, would be highly problematic, because: > > > > 1. RFC 5960 (which defines the MPLS-TP data plane) did not define > any differences between the PW data plane in IP/MPLS and MPLS-TP. > > 2. One of the most popular scenarios for using multi-segment > pseudowires is the case when an edge-to-edge service emulation crosses > multiple IP/MPLS and MPLS-TP domains. In these scenarios, the flow label of > draft-ietf-pwe3-fat-pw (inserted by a flow-aware T-PE at the edge of an > IP/MPLS domain) would potentially compete with GAL (inserted by a T-PE at > the edge of an MPLS-TP domain, e.g., for relying a PW status message that it > has received over a Targeted LDP session from the IP/MPLS domain to a static > PW status message to cross the MPLS-TP domain) for the bottom-of-stack > position. > > > > The issue I am raising Is not new. It has been actively discussed on the > PWE3 mailing list with regard to adoption of draft-nadeau-pwe3-vccv-2 as a > WG document, with arguments for both the flow label and GAL taking the > bottom-of-the-stack position. But, to the best of my understanding, > consensus on this issue has not been reached. > > > > Hopefully this comment will be useful. > > > > Regards, > > Sasha > > > > This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains > information which is CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI > Telecom. If you have received this transmission in error, please inform us > by e-mail, phone or fax, and then delete the original and all copies > thereof. > > This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains > information which is CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI > Telecom. If you have received this transmission in error, please inform us > by e-mail, phone or fax, and then delete the original and all copies > thereof. > > _______________________________________________ > pwe3 mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 > >
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
