Hi Greg, I am not sure if the question has been answered. I would think GAL is at the bottom of the label stack.
Thanks, Rakesh On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 4:24 PM Greg Mirsky <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Weiqiang Cheng, > thank you for your expedient response to my questions. The document states > that one of the use cases for the Path segment is to be used as a > performance, packet loss and/or delay, measurement session identifier. I > think that RFC 6374 is the most suitable for PM OAM in SR-MPLS environment. > Of course, the type of the encapsulated message can be identified using the > destination UDP port number with IP/UDP encapsulation. But another option > is to use G-ACh encapsulation. That would require the use of GAL. And that > is how I've arrived at my original question (I should have explained it > better, my apologies): > > How the Path segment and GAL are placed relative to each other in the > SR-MPLS label stack? > > Regards, > Greg > > On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 4:40 PM Weiqiang Cheng < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Greg, >> >> Thanks a lot for your comments. >> >> My comments are in-line. >> >> >> >> B.R. >> >> Weiqiang Cheng >> >> >> >> *发件人:* Greg Mirsky [mailto:[email protected]] >> *发送时间:* 2019年2月15日 3:37 >> *收件人:* Alexander Vainshtein >> *抄送:* [email protected]; Stewart Bryant; >> [email protected]; [email protected]; Loa >> Andersson >> *主题:* Re: [spring] to progress draft-cheng-spring-mpls-path-segment >> >> >> >> Dear All, >> >> I concur with all what has been said in support of the adoption of this >> draft by SPRING WG. The document is well-written, addresses the real >> problem in SR-MPLS, and the proposed solution is technically viable. >> >> My comments and questions are entirely for further discussion: >> >> - would the draft be expanded to demonstrate how "the Path Segment >> may be used to identify an SR-MPLS Policy, its Candidate-Path (CP) or a >> SID >> List (SL)"? >> >> [Weiqiang] Yes, It is necessary and we will add some text to demonstrate >> this in the future version. >> >> - as many use cases for the Path Segment are related to OAM >> operations, it would be helpful to expand on the use of GAL and the Path >> Segment. >> >> [Weiqiang] It is always helpful to have more use cases. However, >> The GAL is used today in MPLS-TP LSPs to flag the G-Ach and is used for OAM >> packets only while the Path segment is used for data packets for the each >> traffic flow. It is a little bit different. >> >> Regards, >> >> Greg >> >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 1:12 AM Alexander Vainshtein < >> [email protected] <[email protected]>> >> wrote: >> >> +1. >> >> >> >> I have been following this draft from its -00 revision. The current >> revision has resolved most of the issues I (and others) have been raised >> (e.g., elimination of excessive options). >> >> >> >> From my POV, in its current state the draft meets two basic requirements >> for the WG adoption: >> >> 1. It addresses a real and relevant problem, namely the MPLS Flow >> Identification problem discussed in general in RFC 8372 >> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8372> and scoped to SR-MPLS LSPs in this >> draft. Specifics of SR-MPLS include the need to provide end-to-end liveness >> check that is one of the requirements explicitly specified in Section 2 of >> RFC >> 8355 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8355>. >> >> 2. It provides a reasonable (from my POV) approach to solution of >> this problem. >> >> >> >> I also concur with Stewart’s comment about strong similarity between the >> approach taken in this draft for SR-MPLS and generic work in progress on >> synonymous flow labels >> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-sfl-framework-04> that has >> been already adopted as a MPLS WG item. To me this is yet another >> indication that the draft should be adopted. >> >> >> >> My 2c, >> >> Sasha >> >> >> >> Office: +972-39266302 >> >> Cell: +972-549266302 >> >> Email: [email protected] >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: spring <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Stewart Bryant >> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2019 12:48 PM >> To: Loa Andersson <[email protected] <[email protected]>>; [email protected]; >> [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [spring] to progress draft-cheng-spring-mpls-path-segment >> >> >> >> I have just read the draft and agree that it should be adopted by the WG.. >> It solves an important problem in instrumenting and protecting an SR path. >> >> >> >> It should be noted that we needed to do something very similar in >> mainstream MPLS via the synonymous label work which is already adopted. >> >> However SL did not address the SR case.. We therefore need this path >> label work to be progressed. >> >> >> >> - Stewart >> >> >> >> On 10/02/2019 08:11, Loa Andersson wrote: >> >> > Working Group, >> >> > >> >> > I have reviewed draft-cheng-spring-mpls-path-segment and as far as I >> >> > can see, it is ready for wg adoption. >> >> > >> >> > There were some comments in Bangkok, but due to the many collisions >> >> > between working groups at that meeting I couldn't attend the SPRING >> >> > f2f. >> >> > >> >> > The minutes are not clear, but as far as I understand, there is >> >> > nothing that can't be resolved in the wg process. >> >> > >> >> > /Loa >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> spring mailing list >> >> [email protected] >> >> https://www..ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring >> >> >> >> ___________________________________________________________________________ >> >> 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 this >> transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, phone or fax, and then >> delete the original >> and all copies thereof. >> >> ___________________________________________________________________________ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> spring mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring >> >> _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring >
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
