Dear authors of draft-cheng-spring-mpls-path-segment-01, and I have a few 

1.       From my POV, the draft addresses the problem of identifying an 
incoming SR LSP at the tail-end node.

a.       This problem is real because SR LSPs, by their very nature, are MP2P 
(merging) LSPs.

b.       The draft does not try to solve the problem of SR LSP identification 
in transit nodes.

2.       The draft proposes two solutions (one-label and two-label) for the 
above-mentioned problem, and the authors expect the WG to discuss these 
solutions and to select the preferred one. As I see it:

a.       Both uses cases discussed in Section 3 of the draft can be addressed 
with any of these solutions

b.       IMHO and FWIW, as long as SR-MPLS leaves multicast out of scope (as 
mentioned in Section 6 of the SR 
draft), any future issue with identification of SR LSPs that can be addressed 
with the two-label solution can also be addressed with the one-label solution

c.       The two-label solution requires support of upstream-allocated labels 
and context-specific label spaces, i.e., adds substantial implementation 
complexity. The one-label solution can be implemented using just per platform 
label space of downstream-allocated labels.

d.       Based on these considerations, my preference (FWIW) is for one-label 

3.       The draft lists both the already mentioned SR Architecture draft and 
draft as Informative references, but the SRV6 Routing 
draft appears as a Normative reference. From my POV, the first two documents 
MUST be Normative references and the last one - an Informative reference, 
because the draft only deals with SR-MPLS.

Hopefully,  these notes can be useful.


Office: +972-39266302
Cell:      +972-549266302


This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains information 
which is 
CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If you have received 
transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, phone or fax, and then 
delete the original 
and all copies thereof.
spring mailing list

Reply via email to