Re: [Idr] 6PE-Alt draft

Robert Raszuk <raszuk@juniper.net> Sun, 03 February 2008 21:29 UTC

Return-Path: <idr-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-idr-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-idr-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D39E3A6D4B; Sun, 3 Feb 2008 13:29:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.392
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.392 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.207, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vBo7oWhwKaph; Sun, 3 Feb 2008 13:29:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84A283A6D34; Sun, 3 Feb 2008 13:29:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: idr@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D63843A6D26 for <idr@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Feb 2008 13:29:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QQWIVIf91YOw for <idr@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Feb 2008 13:29:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from exprod7og111.obsmtp.com (exprod7og111.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.175]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 994773A6D48 for <idr@ietf.org>; Sun, 3 Feb 2008 13:28:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from source ([66.129.224.36]) by exprod7ob111.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP; Sun, 03 Feb 2008 13:29:51 PST
Received: from magenta.juniper.net ([172.17.27.123]) by emailsmtp56.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Sun, 3 Feb 2008 13:28:15 -0800
Received: from [172.26.250.99] ([172.26.250.99]) by magenta.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id m13LSDq27336; Sun, 3 Feb 2008 13:28:13 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from raszuk@juniper.net)
Message-ID: <47A631EC.80703@juniper.net>
Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2008 13:28:12 -0800
From: Robert Raszuk <raszuk@juniper.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vishwas Manral <vishwas.ietf@gmail.com>
References: <BAY120-W259B9D353746E33D0864CED8370@phx.gbl><77ead0ec0801310631r29449dafq961d8a9aecfea098@mail.gmail.com><77ead0ec0801310700j55f10bcah2aae27dd0fea3927@mail.gmail.com><BAY120-W1856D92C0C10B950241B43D8370@phx.gbl><77ead0ec0801310932i5d6ed617j3fe1df7674c0740f@mail.gmail.com><20080201090733.GA1929@nic.dtag.de> <77ead0ec0802010926k6e57424eoc6ad1328eb65774c@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <77ead0ec0802010926k6e57424eoc6ad1328eb65774c@mail.gmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Feb 2008 21:28:15.0548 (UTC) FILETIME=[AFD51FC0:01C866AB]
Cc: idr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Idr] 6PE-Alt draft
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: raszuk@juniper.net
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/idr>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org

Hi Vishwas,

 > The P device works on the outer Tunnel label and its functionality
 > will not change in my view.

I must say that your view here is incorrect.

There are hardware implementations just like Martin pointed out which 
take not the only top most but _entire_label_stack_ in the mpls packets 
into considerations when hashing in P routers for load sharing purposes.

As far as I can see your proposal breaks this as the second label will 
be always the same thus all packets going to single PE will always take 
the same path.

To address this you would need to change implementations of those P 
routers mpls switching vectors to also consider IPv6 header which is a 
non starter operationally.

Cheers,
R.

> Hi Martin,
> 
> The load sharing and everything else on the of P devices will still
> work the same way. So we would have for example LDP running on the P
> routers giving out labels for FEC's just the same way. The P device
> works on the outer Tunnel label and its functionality will not change
> in my view.
> 
> There is a case of having different labels for preventing one IPv6
> lookup in some cases but in case we had the ECMP case we would have to
> use the IPv6 header lookup and use the inner label as an IPv6 Explicit
> NULL label.
> 
> Do let me know if I missed the point?
> 
> Thanks,
> Vishwas

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
Idr@ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr