IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] Using MS-PW concept for the d-pw

Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Mon, 27 February 2017 14:03 UTC

Return-Path: <loa@pi.nu>
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 91C53129F98 for <detnet-dp-dt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 06:03:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-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 pst_c9nTMvds for <detnet-dp-dt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 06:03:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pipi.pi.nu (pipi.pi.nu [83.168.239.141]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 018B91298CC for <detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 06:03:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.11] (unknown [119.95.38.221]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: loa@pi.nu) by pipi.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7655318013D1; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 15:03:16 +0100 (CET)
To: Jiangyuanlong <jiangyuanlong@huawei.com>, "detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org" <detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org>
References: <DBXPR07MB128EDEE38C28B6C894DE489AC500@DBXPR07MB128.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <7F3B3F19-4929-485C-9434-86D6E7FDB915@broadcom.com> <3B0A1BED22CAD649A1B3E97BE5DDD68BBAB14A38@szxema506-mbs.china.huawei.com> <a27bcbab-5410-3209-fead-a178c03f89cb@pi.nu> <3B0A1BED22CAD649A1B3E97BE5DDD68BBAB14AA3@szxema506-mbs.china.huawei.com> <a9cc73c9-0cd4-71d3-c302-8b4c01d40c10@pi.nu> <11302639-28CA-469B-A7B1-AB891C14218D@broadcom.com> <3B0A1BED22CAD649A1B3E97BE5DDD68BBAB15004@szxema506-mbs.china.huawei.com> <3A2B8D75-265B-4D7F-8F20-1F9692F326C0@broadcom.com> <3B0A1BED22CAD649A1B3E97BE5DDD68BBAB150A7@szxema506-mbs.china.huawei.com> <bbebda63-fe68-5073-6cb6-0c099c7a6d21@pi.nu> <3B0A1BED22CAD649A1B3E97BE5DDD68BBAB1519F@szxema506-mbs.china.huawei.com> <79ABE102-4006-4189-8F20-8A20014C497A@broadcom.com> <3B0A1BED22CAD649A1B3E97BE5DDD68BBAB15505@szxema506-mbs.china.huawei.com> <fc7afd75-cb03-c818-9480-7737035d0d57@pi.nu> <3B0A1BED22CAD649A1B3E97BE5DDD68BBAB155AA@szxema506-mbs.china.huawei.com>
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
Message-ID: <4e6dc2b6-7e8e-2f66-16f6-df92028fd9cd@pi.nu>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 22:03:10 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <3B0A1BED22CAD649A1B3E97BE5DDD68BBAB155AA@szxema506-mbs.china.huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet-dp-dt/jEbXHo3a_n3C5JSmA3N9R68ii5E>
Subject: Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] Using MS-PW concept for the d-pw
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: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 14:03:20 -0000

Yuanlong,


On 2017-02-27 19:25, Jiangyuanlong wrote:
> [YJ] We need to setup two paths from T-PE1 to T-PE2 (not sharing fate if possible), traversing S-PE1 and S-PE2. I think RSVP-TE would be more likely to serve our purpose than LDP, it also provides bandwidth reservation and QoS guarantee.

Two comments

1. It is likely that RSVP-TE will be used for everything that involves
QOS and BW.I don't think the an LSR takes the destination from the
EXPLICIT ROUTE object and put it into the LIB; if it doesn't the node
will have to pull the packet from the fast path and do forwarding in HW.
Anyone that know the exact behavior of RSVP-TE.
So in the data plane I don't think an LSR has the information onm

2. LDP is still in scope and will be used for PWs, so the question is
still valid. If you use LDP how do you know the ingress.

/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