Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-07
Though [I-D.ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-08#ref-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<mailto: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>" 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<mailto: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>" 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<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label-12%23section-4=02%7C01%7Cuma.chunduri%40futurewei.com%7Cff6dd7fc7f384fa669f808d72bfa923b%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637026227508613167=jN5BbkqK3%2FuLOyfIf7nhm4cX8wKxy%2FudEDUMR6NX9ag%3D=0> 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<mailto: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<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.iana.org%2Fassignments%2Figp-parameters%2Figp-parameters.xhtml=02%7C01%7Cuma.chunduri%40futurewei.com%7Cff6dd7fc7f384fa669f808d72bfa923b%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637026227508623162=GYeLpP05mnwKBOxC2tJJ1wxkwcm%2Bip401xzFgIdE1ME%3D=0> ). -- Uma C. ___ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-07
Hi Uma, There was a discussion on this topic. I think this was agreed during Chicago's IETF if I remember correctly. The outcome of the discussion was that if an implementation is able to read N labels, this does not mean that it is actually able to hash based on these N labels. So we needed something which combines the ability of reading + doing an action. That's why the ERLD has been defined instead of the base RLD which was foreseen at first stages of the draft. This implies that there is a possibility to create additional RLDs that may have other applications than entropy. Brgds, From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Uma Chunduri Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 20:38 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. _ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. ___ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-07
Acee, I agree with your statement. We (MSD DE’s) have OKed temporary allocation. I believe WGLC would be in place. Regards, Jeff > On Aug 28, 2019, at 14:30, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > > 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)" > Date: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 4:59 PM > To: Acee Lindem , Uma Chunduri , > "lsr@ietf.org" > Subject: RE: [Lsr] draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-07 > > Point taken… > > Les > > From: Acee Lindem (acee) > Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 1:56 PM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Uma Chunduri > ; 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)" > Date: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 4:46 PM > To: Acee Lindem , Uma Chunduri , > "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) > Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 1:34 PM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Uma Chunduri > ; 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 on behalf of "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" > > Date: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 4:29 PM > To: Uma Chunduri , "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 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 ___ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-07
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)" Date: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 4:59 PM To: Acee Lindem , Uma Chunduri , "lsr@ietf.org" Subject: RE: [Lsr] draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-07 Point taken… Les From: Acee Lindem (acee) Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 1:56 PM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Uma Chunduri ; 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>" 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<mailto: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>" 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<mailto: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
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)" Date: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 4:46 PM To: Acee Lindem , Uma Chunduri , "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) Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 1:34 PM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Uma Chunduri ; 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>" 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<mailto: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
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 on behalf of "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" Date: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 4:29 PM To: Uma Chunduri , "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 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
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 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
Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-07
I know we decided we needed different types of MSD but you’re questioning whether we really need different types of RLD. Forwarding implementors? Thanks, Acee From: Lsr on behalf of Uma Chunduri Date: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 2:38 PM 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
[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
