IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] LFIB proposals

Jiangyuanlong <jiangyuanlong@huawei.com> Wed, 01 March 2017 03:50 UTC

Return-Path: <jiangyuanlong@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: detnet-dp-dt@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: detnet-dp-dt@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED44D1293F0 for <detnet-dp-dt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 19:50:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3EoALEkGLl8V for <detnet-dp-dt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 19:50:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 08F2B127077 for <detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 19:50:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml706-cah.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DHY36788; Wed, 01 Mar 2017 03:50:34 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from SZXEMA413-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.72.72) by lhreml706-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.47) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 03:50:30 +0000
Received: from SZXEMA506-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.67]) by SZXEMA413-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.82.72.72]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 11:50:14 +0800
From: Jiangyuanlong <jiangyuanlong@huawei.com>
To: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>, "detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org" <detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Detnet-dp-dt] LFIB proposals
Thread-Index: AQHSkdDmVs+ekkUFNkeRmuoar4hpiaF/R6/w
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2017 03:50:13 +0000
Message-ID: <3B0A1BED22CAD649A1B3E97BE5DDD68BBAB160AE@szxema506-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <2c2d99cb-5e12-2328-a7f2-07bde1bfdef0@pi.nu>
In-Reply-To: <2c2d99cb-5e12-2328-a7f2-07bde1bfdef0@pi.nu>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.74.203.119]
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="_002_3B0A1BED22CAD649A1B3E97BE5DDD68BBAB160AEszxema506mbschi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A0B0208.58B6450C.017E, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, vtr=str, vl=0, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=169.254.4.67, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 6e840f6be13069ba13cc6762a9a7016e
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet-dp-dt/Chmu_vnGhDwXHYToTeUIYzegRi4>
Subject: Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] LFIB proposals
X-BeenThere: detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: DetNet WG Data Plane Design Team <detnet-dp-dt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/detnet-dp-dt>, <mailto:detnet-dp-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/detnet-dp-dt/>
List-Post: <mailto:detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:detnet-dp-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt>, <mailto:detnet-dp-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2017 03:50:47 -0000

Hi Loa and all,

I have added the label stack for MS-PW approach in slide 14 and an LFIB for MS-PW in slide 15.

Slide 3 to slide 11 discuss the policy of Replicate & Eliminate. 
In all scenarios, it seems "Replicate first and then Eliminate" have some advantages over "Eliminate first and then replicate".
Did I miss something in the analysis? We can have a discussion in our conf. call.

Thanks,
Yuanlong

-----Original Message-----
From: Detnet-dp-dt [mailto:detnet-dp-dt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Loa Andersson
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 10:35 PM
To: detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org
Subject: [Detnet-dp-dt] LFIB proposals

Folks,

I talked Yuanlong earlier today, and we agreed do work a bit on "each others slides and texts". Yuanlong agreed to do the label stacks for "my slide 7" and I agreed convert "my slide 7" to an LFIB. That text is included. Given what I said earlier there needs to be some (a lot of) proof reading done, b ut I think the idea is clear.

One odd thing is that I've been going towards that we don't need the L-level labels, when doing the LFIB I'm less convinced that we can do without them. It turns out that what Stewart Bryant has been talking about over the last year "MPLS labels as instructions", L-labels are (among other things) an instruction to do or not to do replication/ elimination.

Sorry I've not had time to look at multicast.

/Loa

-- 


Loa Andersson                        email: loa@mail01.huawei.com
Senior MPLS Expert                          loa@pi.nu
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email