Re: [Detnet] [mpls] [Pals] draft-decraene-mpls-slid-encoded-entropy-label-id (was RE: Please review the PALS/MPLS/DetNet Joint Session minutes)

Hi Wim,
my interpretation of bullet 4 in Section 4.2 RFC 6790 "The TTL for the EL
MUST be zero to ensure that it is not used inadvertently for forwarding"
leads me to believe that any other than zero value in the EL TTL field is
invalid per RFC 6790. Consequently, that packet MUST be dropped. If that is
not breaking the existing network, please help me understand what is it.

Regards,
Greg

On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 9:11 PM Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) <
wim.henderickx@nokia.com> wrote:

> John,
>
>
>
> We have 2 cases here in my view.
>
>    - A node that is not upgraded with the SW capabilities to support
>    Bruno’s extension -> will still load-balance as before and might or might
>    not take the bits into account that would be used for the slice ID
>       - I believe we are discussing this case when we discuss “we will
>       break existing  ELI/EL Implementations”. Let’s say even if they
>       take the slice id bit into account, they continue to hash/load-balance on
>       the interface set assigned.
>       - Of course this node is not slice aware as the SW is not
>       supporting this extension, but this has is not related to “breaking
>       existing ELI/EL implementations”.
>       - Even when I did a quick test some HW does not even take into
>       account these bits. So in my view we don’t break existing EL/ELI
>       implementations.
>       - We should really validate the behavior of the existing systems to
>       see the behavior if we make such claims.
>    - A node that is upgraded with the extension of Bruno’s draft will do
>    the right thing. This can easily be resolved with an extension in the
>    Control plane to say which nodes support and don’t support slicing.
>
>
>
> *From: *John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>
> *Date: *Wednesday, 30 March 2022 at 22:02
> *To: *Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) <wim.henderickx@nokia.com>,
> bruno.decraene@orange.com <bruno.decraene@orange.com>
> *Cc: *mpls <mpls@ietf.org>, detnet WG <detnet@ietf.org>, pals@ietf.org <
> pals@ietf.org>
> *Subject: *RE: [mpls] [Pals]
> draft-decraene-mpls-slid-encoded-entropy-label-id (was RE: Please review
> the PALS/MPLS/DetNet Joint Session minutes)
>
> Wim,
>
>
>
> I think I would term it a thought experiment.  An RFC 6790 compliant node
> will take the value in the EL label field and use it to select an outgoing
> interface.  If the value in the EL field is a slice ID, such an node will
> select an outgoing interface which is not necessarily part of the slice in
> question and that outgoing interface will be to a node which is not
> necessarily part of the slice in question.
>
>
>
> Yours Irrespectively,
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
> Juniper Business Use Only
>
> *From:* Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) <wim.henderickx@nokia.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 30, 2022 3:21 PM
> *To:* John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>; bruno.decraene@orange.com
> *Cc:* mpls <mpls@ietf.org>; detnet WG <detnet@ietf.org>; pals@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [mpls] [Pals]
> draft-decraene-mpls-slid-encoded-entropy-label-id (was RE: Please review
> the PALS/MPLS/DetNet Joint Session minutes)
>
>
>
> *[External Email. Be cautious of content]*
>
>
>
> John, do you have evidence of this or is this a theoretical claim ?
>
>
>
> *From: *mpls <mpls-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of John E Drake <
> jdrake=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
> *Date: *Wednesday, 30 March 2022 at 19:13
> *To: *bruno.decraene@orange.com <bruno.decraene@orange.com>
> *Cc: *mpls <mpls@ietf.org>, detnet WG <detnet@ietf.org>, pals@ietf.org <
> pals@ietf.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [mpls] [Pals]
> draft-decraene-mpls-slid-encoded-entropy-label-id (was RE: Please review
> the PALS/MPLS/DetNet Joint Session minutes)
>
> Except that putting a slice ID in the Entropy Label field will break
> existing  ELI/EL Implementations because their hashing of the slice ID
> won’t necessarily place a packet on the correct outgoing I/F
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
>
> On Mar 30, 2022, at 1:00 PM, bruno.decraene@orange.com wrote:
>
> 
>
> *[External Email. Be cautious of content]*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Tony Li <tony1athome@gmail.com> *On Behalf Of *Tony Li
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 30, 2022 4:08 PM
>
> > [Kireeti]: suggest attending talk by Tony on danger of reusing ELI
> before making any decision.
>
> https://notes.ietf.org/notes-ietf-113-pals
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/notes.ietf.org/notes-ietf-113-pals__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Sw9ofU9AyD7Z-JKwyAqMlHk5xhNLxZNMSu31Yt6-K7yh-6JehvlSPLDcqrP3gOo$>
>
>
>
> Done. The talk raised no “danger of reusing ELI” for draft
> draft-decraene-mpls-slid-encoded-entropy-label-id; quite the contrary.
>
> I quote: “claims of backward compatibility apply to
> draft-decraene-mpls-slid-encoded-entropy-label-id-03”. With more details on
> slide 18
>
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/113/materials/slides-113-mpls-05-policy-on-mpls-special-purpose-labels-reuse-00
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/113/materials/slides-113-mpls-05-policy-on-mpls-special-purpose-labels-reuse-00__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Sw9ofU9AyD7Z-JKwyAqMlHk5xhNLxZNMSu31Yt6-K7yh-6JehvlSPLDcNEC7QKk$>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yes, the issue with this proposal is that it has no space for in-stack
> data and not enough space for possible expansion of additional actions.
>
>
>
> [Bruno] There are two steps:
>
> - This proposal allows for carrying 8 Indicators and a slice ID while been
> backward compatible with egress LER hance providing faster deployment with
> incremental benefit.
>
> - If more in-stack data is required the proposal is extensible (e.g.
> draft-jags-mpls-ext-hdr) but at the cost of losing the above benefits for
> the ASes & uses-cases requiring more than 8 Indicators per AS or In-Stack
> Data.
>
> So we can have both worlds: simple first step and extensibility for those
> who need it.
>
>
>
> Independently, we also/already have the post stack data option to carry
> ancillary data, which may limit the need for In-Stack data extension.
>
>
>
> --Bruno
>
>
>
> Tony
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Orange Restricted
>
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
>
> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
>
> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
>
> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>
>
>
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
>
> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
>
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
>
> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
>
> Thank you.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pals mailing list
> Pals@ietf.org
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pals__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Sw9ofU9AyD7Z-JKwyAqMlHk5xhNLxZNMSu31Yt6-K7yh-6JehvlSPLDcSqI60Zo$
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pals__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Sw9ofU9AyD7Z-JKwyAqMlHk5xhNLxZNMSu31Yt6-K7yh-6JehvlSPLDcSqI60Zo$>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>