Xiaohu - V9 of the MSD draft has been posted with the promised changes. Please review. I hope this leads to you revising https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc/ to make use of the MSD sub-TLV to advertise RLD.
Les > -----Original Message----- > From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2018 12:13 AM > To: Xuxiaohu <[email protected]>; Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) > <[email protected]>; Christian Hopps <[email protected]>; isis- > [email protected] > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: RE: [Isis-wg] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-07 > > Xiaohu - > > Work on a revision to the MSD draft to make the names and text consistent > with the goal that multiple types of "MSD" will be advertised using the same > sub-TLV is in progress. Once authors have agreed on the changes you will see > a new revision. > > Can I assume that once this is done you are open to changing the mpls-elc > drafts to use the more generic encoding for advertising RLD? > > I think this is important to make judicious use of sub-TLV code points. > As written, https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-03 requires a > distinct sub-TLV from the set of sub-TLVs defined for TLV 242 to advertise > RLD. If this model were to be applied for other types of "MSD", I can foresee > consumption of a significant number of sub-TLV codepoints just for all the > flavors of "MSD". This is one reason we defined the generic MSD sub-TLV > format in draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd. A single sub-TLV can be used > to advertise as many different MSD types as necessary. > > There are also other benefits: > > An IGP agnostic registry is defined to assign MSD types. This means the same > type value can be used in OSPF, IS-IS, and in BGP-LS. > > In IS-IS there is a small efficiency gain in that we do not have to advertise > a > length for each MSD type. > > I look forward to feedback from you once the new revision of the MSD draft > is published. > > Thanx. > > Les > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Xuxiaohu [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 6:40 PM > > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]>; Ketan Talaulikar > > (ketant) <[email protected]>; Christian Hopps <[email protected]>; > > isis- [email protected] > > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] > > Subject: 答复: [Isis-wg] WG Last Call for > > draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd- > > 07 > > > > Hi Les, > > > > If I understand it correctly, the MSD concept was originated from > > (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-11#page-7) > > as described below: > > > > "The "Maximum SID Depth" (1 > > octet) field (MSD) specifies the maximum number of SIDs (MPLS label > > stack depth in the context of this document) that a PCC is capable of > > imposing on a packet." > > > > Before considering expanding the semantics of the MSD concept as > > defined in the above PCE-SR draft, how about first considering > > renaming the capability of imposing the maximum number of labels so as > > to eliminate possible confusions, e.g., Writable Label-stack Depth > > (WLD) as opposed to the Readable Label-stack Depth (RLD) as defined in > > (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc) and > > (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc) ? > > > > Best regards, > > Xiaohu > > > > > -----邮件原件----- > > > 发件人: Isis-wg [mailto:[email protected]] 代表 Les Ginsberg > > > (ginsberg) > > > 发送时间: 2017年12月21日 4:02 > > > 收件人: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant); Christian Hopps; [email protected] > > > 抄送: [email protected]; [email protected] > > > 主题: Re: [Isis-wg] WG Last Call for > > > draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-07 > > > > > > Ketan - > > > > > > Thanx for the comments. > > > I think we do want to allow MSD support for values other than > > > imposition values. We will revise the text so we are not restricted > > > to only > > imposition cases. > > > > > > Les > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) > > > > Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 1:51 AM > > > > To: Christian Hopps <[email protected]>; [email protected] > > > > Cc: [email protected]; > > > > [email protected] > > > > Subject: RE: [Isis-wg] WG Last Call for > > > > draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-07 > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > I support this document and would like to ask the authors and WG > > > > to consider if we can expand the scope of this draft to not just > > > > "imposition" of the SID stack but also other similar limits > > > > related to other > > > actions (e.g. > > > > reading, processing, etc.). With Segment Routing, we are coming > > > > across various actions that nodes need to do with the SID stack > > > > for different purposes and IMHO it would be useful to extend the > > > > MSD ability to cover those as they arise. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Ketan > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Isis-wg [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > > > > Christian Hopps > > > > Sent: 20 December 2017 14:03 > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > Cc: [email protected]; > > > > [email protected] > > > > Subject: [Isis-wg] WG Last Call for > > > > draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-07 > > > > > > > > > > > > The authors have asked for and we are starting a WG Last Call on > > > > > > > > > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-m > > > > sd > > > > / > > > > > > > > which will last an extended 4 weeks to allow for year-end PTO patterns. > > > > > > > > An IPR statement exists: > > > > > > > > > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-iet > > > > f- > > > > is > > > > is- > > > > segment-routing-msd > > > > > > > > Authors please reply to the list indicating whether you are aware > > > > of any > > > > *new* IPR. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Chris. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Isis-wg mailing list > > > > [email protected] > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Isis-wg mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
