Rakesh, authors,
I have not been thinking about this too much. But if you look at fig 2
of draft-cheng-spring-mpls-path-segment, and you need a GACh between
A and D, I'd say that the GAL will be at the bottom of stack.
What if you need the CACh for the sub-path B to C, where will the GAL
go?
/Loa
On 2019-02-23 09:25, Rakesh Gandhi wrote:
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]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[email protected]>]
*发送时间:*2019年2月15日3:37
*收件人:*Alexander Vainshtein
*抄送:*[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>; Stewart Bryant;
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>;
[email protected] <mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[email protected]>____
____
-----Original Message-----
From: spring <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of Stewart Bryant
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2019 12:48 PM
To: Loa Andersson <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>;
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>;
[email protected]
<mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring____
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
--
Loa Andersson email: [email protected]
Senior MPLS Expert
Bronze Dragon Consulting phone: +46 739 81 21 64
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
