Hi John, My response to Adrian’s email should also cover this email too. However, as I also noted in email to Adrian … we all want to let this lingering tread die and follow-up on the next steps noted during this email exchange. I will be happy to have a webEx call and discuss it further, offline.
Thanks Regards … Zafar From: "jdr...@juniper.net" <jdr...@juniper.net> Date: Sunday, November 19, 2017 at 12:59 PM To: "Zafar Ali (zali)" <z...@cisco.com> Cc: draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths <draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-pa...@ietf.org>, spring <spring@ietf.org>, "m...@ietf.org" <m...@ietf.org> Subject: RE: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths Hi, Comments inline Yours Irrespectively, John From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Zafar Ali (zali) Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2017 1:12 AM To: John E Drake <jdr...@juniper.net> Cc: draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths <draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-pa...@ietf.org>; spring <spring@ietf.org>; mpls <m...@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths Hi John, Sorry for delay in the response; I was away from the emails. Please see in-line. Thanks Regards … Zafar <snip> <snip> procedure (in draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths) that breaks SR Architecture, highly unscalable and complicated to implement. [JD] Do you have any evidence to justify any of your assertions, above? Please note that in draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths: • The transit node needs to be able to recognize the special label, read the SR Path Identification label and update the counter against such “states”. [JD] I think I mentioned in a previous email that this is the type of capability used by RSVP-TE LSPs since the advent of MPLS • The draft proposes to push (up to) 3 Labels for each segment in the SR Path. That means that label stack is increased up to 3x times! This is a serious a scaling issue. [JD] Um, no. Two or three labels per SR segment list (aka MPLS label stack) • The controller needs to keep track of transit node capability and push the additional per-path labels, accordingly. I.e., the controller also needs to maintain such information for the transit nodes. [JD] Absolutely not, whatever gave you that idea? If a transit node understands the labels it can maintain and report the counters, otherwise it doesn’t, but the controller doesn’t need to know this a priori. <snip>
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
