Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for "Signaling Entropy Label Capability and Entropy Readable Label-stack Depth Using OSPF" - draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-08

2019-09-10 Thread Acee Lindem (acee) 
Hi Uma,

From: Uma Chunduri 
Date: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 2:43 PM
To: Acee Lindem , "lsr@ietf.org" 
Cc: "m...@ietf.org" , "lsr-...@ietf.org" , 
"draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-...@ietf.org" 
Subject: RE: Working Group Last Call for "Signaling Entropy Label Capability 
and Entropy Readable Label-stack Depth Using OSPF" - draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-08

Support.


One question to authors:

On E bit in section 4:  The motivation seems to extend this in Prefix 
attributes is for inter-area consideration and advertised per every local host 
prefix (link) .
   Is there any specific reason why link 
MSD is not considered instead ? ( https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8491)

Because the intra-area link topology is not exposed across areas or to other 
protocols.

Thanks,
Acee


--
Uma C.


From: mpls  On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2019 12:42 PM
To: lsr@ietf.org
Cc: m...@ietf.org; lsr-...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-...@ietf.org
Subject: [mpls] Working Group Last Call for "Signaling Entropy Label Capability 
and Entropy Readable Label-stack Depth Using OSPF" - draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-08

We’ve gone through a number of iterations with these ELC drafts and I believe 
they are ready and meets all the use case requirements. Note that “Entropy 
Label for Spring tunnels” – draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label-12 is on the 
RFC editor’s queue.
This begins a two week last call for the subject draft. Please indicate your 
support or objection on this list prior to 12:00 AM UTC on Sept 14th, 2014.
Thanks,
Acee
___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for "Signaling Entropy Label Capability and Entropy Readable Label-stack Depth Using OSPF" - draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-08

2019-09-10 Thread Uma Chunduri 
Support.


One question to authors:

On E bit in section 4:  The motivation seems to extend this in Prefix 
attributes is for inter-area consideration and advertised per every local host 
prefix (link) .
   Is there any specific reason why link 
MSD is not considered instead ? ( https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8491)


--
Uma C.


From: mpls  On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2019 12:42 PM
To: lsr@ietf.org
Cc: m...@ietf.org; lsr-...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-...@ietf.org
Subject: [mpls] Working Group Last Call for "Signaling Entropy Label Capability 
and Entropy Readable Label-stack Depth Using OSPF" - draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-08

We’ve gone through a number of iterations with these ELC drafts and I believe 
they are ready and meets all the use case requirements. Note that “Entropy 
Label for Spring tunnels” – draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label-12 is on the 
RFC editor’s queue.
This begins a two week last call for the subject draft. Please indicate your 
support or objection on this list prior to 12:00 AM UTC on Sept 14th, 2014.
Thanks,
Acee
___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-07

2019-09-10 Thread Uma Chunduri 
Though 
[I-D.ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label]
 is been referred in the introduction of this draft the point of dual semantics 
(readable depth + action) for this MSD is not coming out clear in this document.


It would be useful to specify the same.


--
Uma C.

From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) 
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 1:59 PM
To: Acee Lindem (acee) ; Uma Chunduri 
; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Lsr] draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-07

Point taken…

  Les

From: Acee Lindem (acee) mailto:a...@cisco.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 1:56 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com>>; 
Uma Chunduri mailto:uma.chund...@futurewei.com>>; 
lsr@ietf.org
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)" mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com>>
Date: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 4:46 PM
To: Acee Lindem mailto:a...@cisco.com>>, Uma Chunduri 
mailto:uma.chund...@futurewei.com>>, 
"lsr@ietf.org" mailto:lsr@ietf.org>>
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) mailto:a...@cisco.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 1:34 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com>>; 
Uma Chunduri mailto:uma.chund...@futurewei.com>>; 
lsr@ietf.org
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 mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of "Les 
Ginsberg (ginsberg)" mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com>>
Date: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 4:29 PM
To: Uma Chunduri 
mailto:uma.chund...@futurewei.com>>, 
"lsr@ietf.org" mailto:lsr@ietf.org>>
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 mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Uma 
Chunduri
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 11:38 AM
To: lsr@ietf.org
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
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr