Re: [bess] [Idr] Fwd: [mpls] Working Group adoption poll on draft-rosen-mpls-rfc3107bis

[Acee Lindem (acee)]

In case it is not obvious, I support MPLS WG adoption of the subject draft in 
its current form ;^). I already supported it on the MPLS list.
Thanks,
Acee

From: Idr > on behalf of Loa 
Andersson >
Date: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 12:28 AM
To: IDR List >, 
"bess@ietf.org" >
Subject: [Idr] Fwd: [mpls] Working Group adoption poll on 
draft-rosen-mpls-rfc3107bis

Working Groups,

Please note that the working group adoption poll for 
draft-rosen-mpls-rfc3107bis has been started in the mpls wg. Please send your 
comments to the mpls wg mailing list (m...@ietf.org).

/Loa
mpls wg co-chair

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: Loa Andersson >
Date: 30 augusti 2016 08:10:13 GMT+8
To: "m...@ietf.org" >
Cc: 
"draft-rosen-mpls-rfc3107bis@ietf.org"
 
>,
 "mpls-cha...@ietf.org" 
>
Subject: [mpls] Working Group adoption poll on draft-rosen-mpls-rfc3107bis

Working Group,

This is to start a two week poll on adopting draft-rosen-mpls-rfc3107bis
as an MPLS working group document.

Please send your comments (support/not support) to the mpls working
group mailing list (m...@ietf.org). Please give a 
technical
motivation for your support/not support, especially if you think that
the document should not be adopted as a working group document.

There are no IPR disclosures against this document.

All the authors has stated on the on the mpls wg mailing list that they
are not aware of any IPRs that relate to this document.

The working group adoption poll ends September 14, 2016.

/Loa

MPLS wg co-chair.
--


Loa Anderssonemail: 
l...@mail01.huawei.com
Senior MPLS Expert  l...@pi.nu
Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64

___
mpls mailing list
m...@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] [Idr] Fwd: [mpls] Working Group adoption poll on draft-rosen-mpls-rfc3107bis

[Robert Raszuk]

Hi Eric,

While adoption call is sort of encouragement for further input before I
respond to Loa's mail I would like to get one additional answer from
3107bis authors and WGs members.

Those who spend years in mpls deployment know quite well that the biggest
issue with today's 3107 deployment is lack of the clear definition of its
interaction with SAFI-1. While one would hope that 3107bis with new
capability will clean this mess section 5 of your document rather sweeps it
all under the carpet stating that it is just local policy. IMO it is not a
matter of local policy nor it is implementation detail.

Local policy can be to choose which RIB (or sequence of RIBs) should be
used for resolution of specific SAFIs and not how to mix SAFI-1 with
SAFI-4. It's not a local matter at all to have deployment resulting in
inconsistent IBGP best paths across given domain.

To me cleanest is to separate those two SAFIs completely from each other by
the spec both in BGP (done) as well as local RIB and FIB/LFIB.

Likewise I do not quite agree that SAFI-4 should be "convertible" to
SAFI-1. And we all realize that opposite direction is rather hard.

Another perhaps minor clarification would be to get an explicit
confirmation that SAFI-4 can be recursive over SAFI-4 or for that matter
SAFI-1 (MPLS in GRE or SR in IP).

Thx,
R.
___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess