Re: [Isis-wg] Request for WG adoption of draft-xu-isis-mpls-elc-00

Clarence Filsfils <cfilsfil@cisco.com> Thu, 05 June 2014 08:08 UTC

Return-Path: <cfilsfil@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1E261A0109 for <isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Jun 2014 01:08:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.151
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.151 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 Qzayt4mK9YMS for <isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Jun 2014 01:08:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA2F41A00A9 for <isis-wg@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Jun 2014 01:08:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=938; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1401955724; x=1403165324; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=1TJYnJdXeupUddbvLRl7XMEh3VDmDbGyH0FwXYJqNms=; b=YRxdhw0GdsEYZ8Bxpn1utIrPMiGOrJVi2VoscJmwycSGA6M3zg5V/h5b cnPVuxb07v78NeZi0ppuNZh5XQH9GTzxQtzBu0mT+9z973xePz5PRspgV eFMsBbWmIU3bUYhBcjpXftePVPVnafZMZ1BaXD4oG+t5r1qnL2tQI7tGd 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsKAIAkkFOtJV2T/2dsb2JhbABZgwerdwUBmCcBgQwWdIIlAQEBBDg6BgEMBAsRBAEBChYIBwkDAgECATQJCAYNAQUCAQGIPtM6F4VViH0HBoQ6AQOaE4ZwjEmDOjs
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.98,979,1392163200"; d="scan'208";a="330764338"
Received: from rcdn-core-11.cisco.com ([173.37.93.147]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 05 Jun 2014 08:08:43 +0000
Received: from [10.21.127.254] (sjc-vpn6-2046.cisco.com [10.21.127.254]) by rcdn-core-11.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s5588fd0029854; Thu, 5 Jun 2014 08:08:41 GMT
Message-ID: <53902588.7040803@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2014 10:08:40 +0200
From: Clarence Filsfils <cfilsfil@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com>
References: <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE0827D488@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com> <9818_1401797825_538DBCC1_9818_12387_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF920133A5@OPEXCLILM34.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE0827DF1B@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com> <18316_1401864106_538EBFAA_18316_9423_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF92019077@OPEXCLILM34.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE0827E037@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com> <10697_1401881659_538F043B_10697_5233_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF9201B2F2@OPEXCLILM34.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE0827E408@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE0827E408@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/fywa7p1sNSc-QOLz1dMc4Zuo_ng
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 05 Jun 2014 04:14:29 -0700
Cc: "isis-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <isis-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, "draft-xu-isis-mpls-elc@tools.ietf.org" <draft-xu-isis-mpls-elc@tools.ietf.org>, "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Request for WG adoption of draft-xu-isis-mpls-elc-00
X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group <isis-wg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/isis-wg>, <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/isis-wg/>
List-Post: <mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg>, <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2014 08:08:52 -0000

Xiaohu,

>> -----Original Message----- From: stephane.litkowski@orange.com
>> [mailto:stephane.litkowski@orange.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 04,
>> 2014 7:34 PM To: Xuxiaohu; isis-chairs@tools.ietf.org Cc:
>> draft-xu-isis-mpls-elc@tools.ietf.org; isis-wg@ietf.org Subject:
>> RE: Request for WG adoption of draft-xu-isis-mpls-elc-00
>>
>> Worst scenario (that I would not push for :) ) : What would you do
>> with your capability if the conclusion is that EL insertion would
>> not be supported for stacked tunnels because too complex ?
>
> I have to disagree with your assumption. At least for option 1 (i.e.,
> inserting a single EL at the bottom of the LSP stack), do you believe
> it's too complex? In addition, remember that one of the use cases of
> SPRING is IGP-based MPLS Tunneling (see section 2 of
> draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-use-cases-00).

What is the logical relationship?

Cheers,
Clarence