Hi Tony, Hi Les,
Thanks for your thoughts and suggestions.
The per-link RLD will be taken into account regardless of the scope of ERLD-MSD
and the draft will be continuously refined based on the WG's discussion and
conclusion.
Kind Regards,
Yao
Original
From: LesGinsberg(ginsberg) <[email protected]>
To: Tony Li <[email protected]>;刘尧00165286;
Cc: mpls <[email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]>;
Date: 2023年08月29日 23:48
Subject: RE: [Lsr] New Version Notification for
draft-liu-lsr-mpls-inspection-msd-01.txt
I am in agreement with Tony.
It seems that there are potential use cases for link specific RLD.
As to why RFC 9088 chose to prohibit use of link specific ERLD, the authors of
that RFC are in the best position to answer.
One possible explanation is “simplicity”. This aspect is discussed in
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8662.html#name-entropy-readable-label-dept –
but RFC 9088 does not make explicit if that was the reason – so I am only
speculating here.
Yao – I think this deserves discussion in MPLS WG.
At a minimum, if the conclusion is to ignore per Link RLD advertisements that
needs to be made explicit (as RFC 9088 did) and some explanation as to “why”
should be included in the draft.
Les
From: Tony Li <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Tony Li
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2023 7:15 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Les Ginsberg (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,
IMHO, that was a mistake in the specification of ERLD.
I’m hopeful that we don’t repeat the same mistake.
Tony
On Aug 29, 2023, at 1:22 AM, <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
wrote:
Hi Tony,
Thanks a lot for your suggestion. This scenario would be taken into
consideration.
But on the other hand, what I haven't understood is that why ERLD-MSD is
limited to per-node scope considering that each line card may have different
capabilities to read through the label stack.
Best Regards,
Yao
Original
From: TonyLi <[email protected]>
To: 刘尧00165286;
Cc: Les Ginsberg <[email protected]>;mpls <[email protected]>;[email protected]
<[email protected]>;
Date: 2023年08月29日 10:36
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]> <[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
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
From: LesGinsberg(ginsberg) <[email protected]>
To: 刘尧00165286;[email protected] <[email protected]>;[email protected] <[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]> On Behalf Of [email protected]
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2023 12:33 AM
To: [email protected]; [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] <[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]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
