Re: [mpls] [PWE3] IETF Last Call comment on draft-ietf-pwe3-gal-in-pw

["Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)" <[e-mail]>]

Sasha,

On your final comment on the concept of an MPLS-TP PW, RFC5586 has already made the distinction between the use of the GAL on PWs in MPLS-TP and in other MPLS environments. This draft aligns the two cases in terms of the applicability of the GAL, by updating RFC5586 to remove the restriction on its use and position in an MPLS-TP environment.

The case of interconnecting PW segments on MPLS-TP to PW segments on general MPLS networks should be discussed elsewhere, IMHO, as the interaction between the GAL and hashing on some PW segments is most likely not the only issue. RFC5921 rules out the use of ECMP in MPLS-TP networks, so one would not expect an MPLS-TP PSN to hash the flow label today. If that is going to change or if there are other flow label applications in MPLS-TP, then IMHO drafts detailing those applications should discuss the interaction with the GAL.

Regards,

Matthew

On 02/09/2011 06:05, "Alexander Vainshtein" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

Stewart,
Lots of thanks for a prompt response.

My original email contained a typo (S-PE instead of T-PE  named as inserting ) which I've acknowledged and corrected in this thread (please see http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pwe3/current/msg12586.html).

With this correction in mind, the example I've presented (an MS-PW that originates in a T-PE in a MPLS-TP domain and them crosses - at S-PE - into an IP/MPLS domain) matches, IMHO, Yaakov's question. And if the operator wishes to improve traffic distribution in the IP/MPLS domain which employs ECMP, flow labels would be inserted by T-PE.

I believe that the change in draft-ietf-pwe3-gal-in-pw that you've proposed inhttp://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pwe3/current/msg12613.html resolves the original issue I've raised of both GAL and flow label "competing" for the BoS position.

However, a conceptual question - can any MPLS-TP restrictions be placed on PWs?- remains open as noted in Greg's comment (please see http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pwe3/current/msg12620.html). IMHO and FWIW we should acknowledge the fact (implicitly recognized  already in RFC 5920) that there is simply no such thing as a MPLS-TP PW.

Hopefully this note clarifies my position on the subject.

Regards, and apologies for the original typo,
     Sasha

________________________________
From: Stewart Bryant [[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>]
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 8:33 PM
To: Alexander Vainshtein
Cc: Yaakov Stein; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; pwe3; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; Luca Martini; IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: [mpls] [PWE3] IETF Last Call comment on draft-ietf-pwe3-gal-in-pw


On 01/09/2011 17:07, Alexander Vainshtein wrote:
Yaakov,
You've written
PW that starts in an MPLS-TP domain, can easily leak into a non-TP domain
This is exactly the point that I've raised in my IETF LC comment on the draft (for MS-PW) - please see my email (to several lists) that explains that in some detail, at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pwe3/current/msg12581.html.

Regards,
Sasha

The operator intends to improve traffic distribution in the IP/MPLS domain, hence he enables insertion and discard of "flow labels" at the two S-PEs.

Speaking as an author of the FAT-PW draft I do not recall any text that proposes that S-PEs insert FLs in the stack, and it never occurred to me that anyone anyone would try, since would require a change to the design of the S-PEs.

Stewart



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.