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

Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com> Fri, 06 June 2014 02:29 UTC

Return-Path: <xuxiaohu@huawei.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 46ED11A03BD; Thu, 5 Jun 2014 19:29:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.852
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.852 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 sSBCoyd8m6cH; Thu, 5 Jun 2014 19:29:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E30A21A03BB; Thu, 5 Jun 2014 19:29:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BHW83388; Fri, 06 Jun 2014 02:29:07 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LHREML403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) by lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Fri, 6 Jun 2014 03:28:13 +0100
Received: from NKGEML404-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.35) by lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Fri, 6 Jun 2014 03:29:04 +0100
Received: from NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.62]) by nkgeml404-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.35]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Fri, 6 Jun 2014 10:28:57 +0800
From: Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com>
To: Hannes Gredler <hannes@juniper.net>
Thread-Topic: [Isis-wg] Request for WG adoption of draft-xu-isis-mpls-elc-00
Thread-Index: Ac9z2gorbAmJYe4UTpeoTQ6gc4g+PgIyyZiAAKATQMAATqAigAARemRw
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 02:28:56 +0000
Message-ID: <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE0827EB7D@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com>
References: <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE0827D488@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com> <9818_1401797825_538DBCC1_9818_12387_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF920133A5@OPEXCLILM34.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <CD0A9624-12C3-4413-AFD5-C0CF25071FF4@juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <CD0A9624-12C3-4413-AFD5-C0CF25071FF4@juniper.net>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.98.134]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/xl-TRbW4nM5b3psYsvT_DXGqe8I
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "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>, "<spring@ietf.org>" <spring@ietf.org>, "isis-wg@ietf.org list" <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: Fri, 06 Jun 2014 02:29:17 -0000

Hi Hannes,

It seems that you are not talking about the particular ELC concept as defined in RFC6790 (i..e, the capability of recognizing the ELI and popping that ELI and the following EL). Instead, it seems that you are talking about something else related to the capability of accessing the maximum label stack depth.

As for the granularity of the ELC advertisement (i.e., per-node basis or per-interface-board basis), it has been discussed before. Although the ELC is interface-board related, since it's almost impossible to determine at which interface a packet destined for one of the router's addresses would arrive (e.g., a MPLS packet with the top label being a node segment ID of a given LSR), the feasible way of advertising the ELC is: the egress LSR SHOULD not advertise its ELC unless all of its interface-boards have the ELC. By the way, this is exactly the same way that can be supported by RFC6790, IMHO.

Best regards,
Xiaohu 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Isis-wg [mailto:isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Hannes Gredler
> Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2014 5:47 PM
> To: Xuxiaohu
> Cc: isis-chairs@tools.ietf.org; <spring@ietf.org>rg>;
> draft-xu-isis-mpls-elc@tools.ietf.org; isis-wg@ietf.org list
> Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Request for WG adoption of draft-xu-isis-mpls-elc-00
> 
> <IS-IS WG chair hat off>
> 
> i'm discomfortable with the *granularity* of the cap-advertisement:
> 
> rather than saying:
> 
> "i can crawl as deep as you like on any of my interfaces"
> 
>   i'd like to announce:
> 
> "i can crawl for EL <N> up to labels deep on interface XYZ"
> 
> 
> /hannes
> 
> On Jun 3, 2014, at 2:17 PM, <stephane.litkowski@orange.com>
> <stephane.litkowski@orange.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > IMHO, before defining the capability, I would be more interrested on seeing
> some progress on a solution for EL over SPRING. A draft exists with multiple
> options, maybe we should wait for one option to have consensus before
> worrying about ELC encoding (quite easy part of the EL for SPRING).
> >
> >
> > Stephane
> >
> > -----Message d'origine-----
> > De : Isis-wg [mailto:isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Xuxiaohu
> > Envoyé : samedi 31 mai 2014 10:05 À : isis-chairs@tools.ietf.org Cc :
> > draft-xu-isis-mpls-elc@tools.ietf.org; isis-wg@ietf.org Objet :
> > [Isis-wg] Request for WG adoption of draft-xu-isis-mpls-elc-00
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> _____________________________________________________________
> _________
> > ___________________________________________________
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Isis-wg mailing list
> > Isis-wg@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Isis-wg mailing list
> Isis-wg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg