Re: [Lsr] [mpls] Comments on draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label

" 徐小虎(义先) " <xiaohu.xxh@alibaba-inc.com> Fri, 06 July 2018 01:25 UTC

Return-Path: <xiaohu.xxh@alibaba-inc.com>
X-Original-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52AD1130DCB; Thu, 5 Jul 2018 18:25:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.019
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.019 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FROM_EXCESS_BASE64=0.979, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=alibaba-inc.com
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 XgEx9MlRQQQW; Thu, 5 Jul 2018 18:25:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out0-138.mail.aliyun.com (out0-138.mail.aliyun.com [140.205.0.138]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E8357130FDA; Thu, 5 Jul 2018 18:25:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=alibaba-inc.com; s=default; t=1530840311; h=Date:From:To:Message-ID:Subject:MIME-Version:Content-Type; bh=ZuBYFOCaqQymmVBJJM4HB5q/PNQOh3UkbS82pH5sGVQ=; b=GHpPHXe8KIhbJYysIwoHOmEq1FKteDBtn9ghSCaGA4mcxe6NYqVfRn/RVX7Lqi3a2bUlRqhmYQaYP//YyytAiTIior/fxfkH/tpK6d6iQZFh2AUTNH3I16vmqpKtxZ+r0N8G7K10TGtEinnloEaxgJmtvShEc9Q5fhf3lg1D2Ic=
X-Alimail-AntiSpam: AC=PASS; BC=-1|-1; BR=01201311R211e4; CH=green; FP=0|-1|-1|-1|0|-1|-1|-1; HT=e02c03298; MF=xiaohu.xxh@alibaba-inc.com; NM=1; PH=DW; RN=5; SR=0; TI=W4_5295521_v5ForWebDing_0AC26432_1530839702024_o7001c3900;
Received: from WS-web (xiaohu.xxh@alibaba-inc.com[W4_5295521_v5ForWebDing_0AC26432_1530839702024_o7001c3900]) by e01l10414.eu6 at Fri, 06 Jul 2018 09:25:08 +0800
Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2018 09:25:08 +0800
From: "=?UTF-8?B?5b6Q5bCP6JmOKOS5ieWFiCk=?=" <xiaohu.xxh@alibaba-inc.com>
To: "Jeff Tantsura" <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>, "stephane.litkowski" <stephane.litkowski@orange.com>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Cc: "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>, "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>
Reply-To: "=?UTF-8?B?5b6Q5bCP6JmOKOS5ieWFiCk=?=" <xiaohu.xxh@alibaba-inc.com>
Message-ID: <2520eff6-aafa-42af-99e7-0374f0dd027b.xiaohu.xxh@alibaba-inc.com>
X-Mailer: [Alimail-Mailagent revision 268][W4_5295521][v5ForWebDing][Safari]
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <43768014-1ce8-43d0-9f9b-04eba6f87904.xiaohu.xxh@alibaba-inc.com> <7608_1530829167_5B3E996F_7608_323_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF924B1F0131@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>, <EC8F6C49-5D83-467B-9C4D-07EEFC9CBEFE@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <EC8F6C49-5D83-467B-9C4D-07EEFC9CBEFE@gmail.com>
x-aliyun-mail-creator: W4_5295521_v5ForWebDing_QvNTW96aWxsYS81LjAgKE1hY2ludG9zaDsgSW50ZWwgTWFjIE9TIFggMTBfMTJfNikgQXBwbGVXZWJLaXQvNjA0LjUuNiAoS0hUTUwsIGxpa2UgR2Vja28pIFZlcnNpb24vMTEuMC4zIFNhZmFyaS82MDQuNS42La
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=ALIBOUNDARY_2649_4af24940_5b3ec4f4_148547"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/4qQineoSyzYi_wCdnfkaqk9Or3g>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] =?utf-8?q?=5Bmpls=5D_Comments_on_draft-ietf-mpls-spring-en?= =?utf-8?q?tropy-label?=
X-BeenThere: lsr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
Precedence: list
List-Id: Link State Routing Working Group <lsr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsr/>
List-Post: <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2018 01:25:25 -0000

Hi Jeff,

Thanks for your clarification. IMHO, no matter the MSD information is provided by whatever protocol, the semantics of the MSD itself should be unified in the IETF community. Otherwise, it would introduce unnecessary confusion to implementors and operators.

It said in the OSPF-MSD draft:
"
   MSD: Maximum SID Depth - the number of SIDs a node or one of its
   links can support"

What does the "support" exactly mean? It seems at least to me a little bit ambiguous compared to the MSD concept as defined in the PCEP-SR draft.

Best regards,
Xiaohu
 



------------------------------------------------------------------
From:Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>
Send Time:2018年7月6日(星期五) 07:48
To:stephane.litkowski <stephane.litkowski@orange.com>om>; 徐小虎(义先) <xiaohu.xxh@alibaba-inc.com>om>; mpls@ietf.org <mpls@ietf.org>
Cc:lsr@ietf.org <lsr@ietf.org>rg>; pce@ietf.org <pce@ietf.org>
Subject:Re: [mpls] Comments on draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label


Hi,

Please see inline (MSD section).
Hope this clarifies, thanks!

Cheers,
Jeff



[jeff] both IGP drafts have identical description of the BMI-MSD:
“Base MPLS Imposition MSD (BMI-MSD) signals the total number of MPLS labels a node is capable of imposing, including all service/transport/special labels.”
PCEP draft supports only a subset of overall MSD functionality and in general it is expected that this info would come from IGPs(BGP-LS).
However the functoriality provided by PCEP is inline with the  BMI-MSD definition in the IGP drafts, at the node granularity only though. 


3. Section 5 introduces the MSD concept. I wonder whether this concept is aligned with the MSD concept as defined in the PCEP-SR draft or the MSD concept as defined in the IGP-MSD draft. In PCEP-SR draft, it said "
The "Maximum SID Depth" (1
   octet) field (MSD) specifies the maximum number of SIDs (MPLS label
   stack depth in the context of this document) that a PCC is capable of
   imposing on a packet.
 
In the IGP-MSD draft, it said "
MSD of type 1 (IANA Registry), called Base MSD is used to signal the
   total number of SIDs a node is capable of imposing, to be used by a
   path computation element/controller.  "
 
If I understand it correctly, the MSD in this draft==the MSD in PCEP-SR draft==the Base MSD (i.e., the MSD of type 1), No?

[SLI] Today, the two IGP drafts does not seem to agree on the definition
ISIS says:” Base MPLS Imposition MSD (BMI-MSD) signals the total number of MPLS
   labels a node is capable of imposing, including all
   service/transport/special labels.”
OSPF says:” MSD of type 1 (IANA Registry) is used to signal the number of SIDs a
   node is capable of imposing, to be used by a path computation
   element/controller and is only relevant to the part of the stack
   created as the result of the computation.”

MSD is just MSD is defines a maximum number of labels to be pushed. This is the definition we use and it is compliant with the one used in PCEP-SR:
“The "Maximum SID Depth" (1
   octet) field (MSD) specifies the maximum number of SIDs (MPLS label
   stack depth in context of this document) that a PCC is capable of
   imposing on a packet.”

As we also say: “This includes any kind of labels (service, entropy, transport...).”, we are compliant with the BMI-MSD defined in IS-IS.



Best regards,
Xiaohu
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 
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.
_______________________________________________ mpls mailing list mpls@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls