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

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Thu, 05 June 2014 12:25 UTC

Return-Path: <rraszuk@gmail.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 A7F9D1A0097 for <isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Jun 2014 05:25:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.278
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 Xl7ERK1HFxAc for <isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Jun 2014 05:25:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ig0-x236.google.com (mail-ig0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::236]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48E2B1A00A2 for <isis-wg@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Jun 2014 05:25:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ig0-f182.google.com with SMTP id a13so2213267igq.15 for <isis-wg@ietf.org>; Thu, 05 Jun 2014 05:25:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=m/xKPIFc5sQl1sndZhX0PSGzqC8jMT2/YWQIJI3kC+A=; b=I2XdIPvbgIXMceZ0FXOgaL9Cf9+7M7KiEgth1TonORAWokRtWVq2JypHgHZ2BbrL1o ZxxGckwLfgiGYM9O91OtudrqO0noAIAx4O2szv7n2g59fDTF1nUQS7L2Dfjmy0GnsDMD ac7wyLelIQ8wxWiraulWp+LdOrHyyFjx2r4Syia1LLyLCV3dSVqWmoZEWyXdIxjeIVcB z3mkB3TDw7sxQo00NhRNWjpSMBnSIjvgSt3/n3/328chwteb8/57EhdVt9rNXvbWzyoc 6jJcXBh/WuIxziuEp6weCE/Jb+Fbu8/X//1T0KEaL8ripbny1z2gJoWGB3FN/IIZykFN a9DA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.20.97 with SMTP id m1mr19655529ige.28.1401971112796; Thu, 05 Jun 2014 05:25:12 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: rraszuk@gmail.com
Received: by 10.64.242.198 with HTTP; Thu, 5 Jun 2014 05:25:12 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE0827D488@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com>
References: <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE0827D488@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2014 14:25:12 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: mYbiElQtJFmD5J1GE963ZfSt7VQ
Message-ID: <CA+b+ERmCusprkp3nYcwUtK4F0qmiv6-DogsEQ7vcJSgPRaHuPg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
To: Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/pjRGsP4RmrAyJ4lFfestSo4pHdM
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 12:25:23 -0000

Hi Xu,

Actually let me express an opinion that while for other MPLS
signalling protocols the concept of entropy label as describe in RFC
6790 may be useful I would rather question if the same applies to
segment routing architecture.

Fundamental difference here is that other MPLS signalling protocols
bind labels to FECs. SR on the other hand binds SIDs (which one of the
special case of can be label) to nodes or links. That means that
number of such bindings will naturally be orders of magnitude less in
the SR concept.

That means that perhaps one could really analyze if the tuple ELI + EL
(one or many) is that much needed as opposed to advertise wider range
of SIDs and simply use those in flat layer for loadbalancing reasons ?
Just mapping different flows on ingress to different label from said
range.

Also that not only can accomplish egress node loadbalancing, but also
all via nodes will have no problem with such input to a hash function
regardless if they are SR capable or not ?

Maybe rather then copying all fixes of MPLS original architecture to
SR its better to adjust SR architecture to at least not repeat the
same mistakes we have already made in the past ?

Comments ?

Cheers,
R.



On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 10:05 AM, Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com> wrote:
> Hi WG co-chairs,
>
> This draft (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-isis-mpls-elc-00) describes how to advertise the MPLS Entropy Label Capability (ELC) using IS-IS in SPRING networks. Since (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-00) has been adopted as a WG draft, as co-authors of draft-xu-isis-mpls-elc-00, we hope you could consider the WG adoption for this draft as well.
>
> Best regards,
> Xiaohu (on behalf of all-authors)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Isis-wg mailing list
> Isis-wg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg