Hi Uma, The draft states that an explicit ERLD is required. I’m not a forwarding ASIC expert so I can’t envision all the trade-offs but I certainly don’t see much risk in continuing with the ERLD as this has been in the drafts for some time.
All, I’d like to Working Group Last Call these drafts as I believe they are ready and we even have some implementation momentum. Anyone disagree? Thanks, Acee From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 4:59 PM To: Acee Lindem <[email protected]>, Uma Chunduri <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [Lsr] draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-07 Point taken… Les From: Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 1:56 PM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]>; Uma Chunduri <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-07 Les, Then what you meant in your response was, “generic RLD” as opposed to “generic MSD”. Thanks, Acee From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 4:46 PM To: Acee Lindem <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Uma Chunduri <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: RE: [Lsr] draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-07 Acee – I do understand the question – and I believe the reference I cited provides the answer. You need to read the referenced draft. If you have a cogent argument why it is safe to assume that the combination of actions required to support EL translate to any other type of activity that might be required on a label stack, please make it. Then Uma’s suggestion might make sense. Les From: Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 1:34 PM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Uma Chunduri <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-07 Hi Les, I think the question is whether there can be a single RLD depth MSD rather than a RLD solely for entropy label discovery. Thanks, Acee From: Lsr <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 4:29 PM To: Uma Chunduri <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-07 Uma – Please read https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label-12#section-4 In short, we do not assume that EL Load Balancing can be performed for generic MSD. Thanx. Les From: Lsr <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of Uma Chunduri Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 11:38 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: [Lsr] draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-07 Can anybody tell what was the conclusion (if any) in previous discussions in various WGs on why the readable label depth in an LSR has to be entropy label specific ? IOW can we just modify this as “readable label depth” as opposed to “entropy readable label depth” ? This would allow any other special purpose label inserted in the stack and would be at par with current MSD type “Base MPLS Imposition MSD” ( https://www.iana.org/assignments/igp-parameters/igp-parameters.xhtml ). -- Uma C.
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
