Hi Eduard,

I know several different products that use different silicon on different line 
cards, ending up with different capabilities on different interfaces. 

This is more of a hardware issue than a software one.

Different chips will necessarily have different low layer micro-code. That 
already exists today, across vendors.

Tony


> On Aug 28, 2023, at 11:44 PM, Vasilenko Eduard 
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Tony,
> Do you know any product that supports different label (or SID) stacks on 
> different PFEs? (Not mandatory to disclose the vendor)
> I remember many major upgrades for many vendors and all the time the whole 
> router supported the “common denominator”.
> Of course, it is possible to develop code and micro-code to support different 
> label stacks on different PFEs but looks like no one vendor has found a 
> business case for such a big development program.
> PS: I am not sure, I may missed a good example.
> Eduard
> From: Lsr [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tony Li
> Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2023 5:36 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: Les Ginsberg <[email protected]>; mpls <[email protected]>; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for 
> draft-liu-lsr-mpls-inspection-msd-01.txt
>  
>  
> Hi Yao,
>  
> Please consider the case of a modular node with a number of different line 
> cards, where the line cards are based on different forwarding engines.
>  
> RLD needs to be link specific.
>  
> Regards,
> Tony
>  
> 
> 
> On Aug 28, 2023, at 6:55 PM, <[email protected] 
> <mailto:[email protected]>> <[email protected] 
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>  
> Hi Les,
> 
> Thanks a lot for your review and comments.
> 
> This new MSD is a per-node capability just like ERLD-MSD, mainly because it 
> represents how many MPLS labels the node can read, and it is not related with 
> the links.
> 
> And the description in this draft you mentioned is written taking example by 
> RFC9088(section 4. Advertising ERLD Using IS-IS).
> 
> I'll explicitly state the scope of the new MSD in the next version. 
> 
>  
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Yao
> 
> Original
> From: LesGinsberg(ginsberg) <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
> To: 刘尧00165286;[email protected] <[email protected] 
> <mailto:[email protected]>>;[email protected] <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>;
> Date: 2023年08月28日 20:57
> Subject: RE: [Lsr] Fw: New Version Notification for 
> draft-liu-lsr-mpls-inspection-msd-01.txt
> Yao –
>  
> Both RFC 8476(OSPF) and RFC 8491(IS-IS) define MSD advertisements with 
> per-link scope and per-node scope.
>  
> Your draft only states: 
>  
> “If a router has multiple interfaces with different capabilities of
>    reading the maximum label stack depth, the router MUST advertise the
>    smallest value found across all its interfaces.”
>  
> This suggests that you intend only to advertise a per-node capability – but 
> as you don’t explicitly state that – and you don’t provide a reason why a per 
> link capability isn’t applicable, I am unclear as to what your intentions are 
> here.
>  
> Could you clarify whether you intend to support both per link and per node 
> capability – and if not why not?
>  
> Thanx.
>  
>    Les
>  
>  
> From: Lsr <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of 
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2023 12:33 AM
> To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> Subject: [Lsr] Fw: New Version Notification for 
> draft-liu-lsr-mpls-inspection-msd-01.txt
>  
> Hi All,
> 
> A new version of draft-liu-lsr-mpls-inspection-msd has just been uploaded.
> 
> In this document, a new type of MSD is defined to reflect the Readable Label 
> Depth(RLD), which helps in the MPLS MNA solution.
> 
> In this version, the main update is that some description is added to explain 
> why a new MSD is preferred instead of the ERLD-MSD.
> 
> Currently this new MSD is called Base MPLS Inspection MSD, it may be changed 
> to a more straightforward name like RLD-MSD based on the description in the 
> MNA architecture/solution document. 
> 
> Your comments and suggestions are more than welcome!
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Yao
> 
> Original
> From: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> 
> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
> Date: 2023年08月28日 14:55
> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-liu-lsr-mpls-inspection-msd-01.txt
> A new version of Internet-Draft draft-liu-lsr-mpls-inspection-msd-01.txt has
> been successfully submitted by Yao Liu and posted to the
> IETF repository.
> 
> Name:     draft-liu-lsr-mpls-inspection-msd
> Revision: 01
> Title:    Signaling Base MPLS Inspection MSD
> Date:     2023-08-27
> Group:    Individual Submission
> Pages:    7
> URL:      
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-liu-lsr-mpls-inspection-msd-01.txt
> Status:   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-liu-lsr-mpls-inspection-msd/
> HTML:     
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-liu-lsr-mpls-inspection-msd-01.html
> HTMLized: 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-liu-lsr-mpls-inspection-msd
> Diff:     
> https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-liu-lsr-mpls-inspection-msd-01
> 
> Abstract:
> 
>    This document defines a new type of MSD, Base MPLS Inspection MSD to
>    reflect the Readable Label Depth(RLD), and the mechanism to signal
>    this MSD using IGP and BGP-LS.
> 
> 
> 
> The IETF Secretariat
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Lsr mailing list
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Lsr mailing list
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Reply via email to