Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-07

Acee,

I agree with your statement.
We (MSD DE’s) have OKed temporary allocation.
I believe WGLC would be in place.

Regards,
Jeff

> On Aug 28, 2019, at 14:30, Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Uma,
>  
> The draft states that an explicit ERLD is required. I’m not a forwarding ASIC expert so I can’t envision all the trade-offs but I certainly don’t see much risk in continuing with the ERLD as this has been in the drafts for some time.
>  
> All,
>  
> I’d like to Working Group Last Call these drafts as I believe they are ready and we even have some implementation momentum. Anyone disagree?
>  
> Thanks,
> Acee
>  
> From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
> Date: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 4:59 PM
> To: Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>, Uma Chunduri <uma.chunduri@futurewei.com>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>
> Subject: RE: [Lsr] draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-07
>  
> Point taken…
>  
>   Les
>  
> From: Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com> 
> Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 1:56 PM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg@cisco.com>; Uma Chunduri <uma.chunduri@futurewei.com>; lsr@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-07
>  
> Les,
>  
> Then what you meant in your response was, “generic RLD” as opposed to “generic MSD”.
>  
> Thanks,
> Acee
>  
>  
>  
>  
> From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
> Date: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 4:46 PM
> To: Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>, Uma Chunduri <uma.chunduri@futurewei.com>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>
> Subject: RE: [Lsr] draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-07
>  
> Acee –
>  
> I do understand the question – and I believe the reference I cited provides the answer. You need to read the referenced draft.
>  
> If you have a cogent argument why it is safe to assume that the combination of actions required to support EL translate to any other type of activity that might be required on a label stack, please make it. Then Uma’s suggestion might make sense.
>  
>    Les
>  
> From: Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com> 
> Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 1:34 PM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg@cisco.com>; Uma Chunduri <uma.chunduri@futurewei.com>; lsr@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-07
>  
> Hi Les,
> I think the question is whether there can be a single RLD depth MSD rather than a RLD solely for entropy label discovery.
> Thanks,
> Acee
>  
> From: Lsr <lsr-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
> Date: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 4:29 PM
> To: Uma Chunduri <uma.chunduri@futurewei.com>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-07
>  
> Uma –
>  
> Please read https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label-12#section-4
>  
> In short, we do not assume that EL Load Balancing can be performed for generic MSD.
>  
> Thanx.
>  
>    Les
>  
>  
> From: Lsr <lsr-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Uma Chunduri
> Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 11:38 AM
> To: lsr@ietf.org
> Subject: [Lsr] draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-07
>  
> Can anybody tell what was the conclusion (if any) in previous discussions in various WGs on why the readable label depth in an LSR has to be entropy label specific ?
>  
> IOW can we just modify this as “readable label depth” as opposed to “entropy readable label depth” ?
> This would allow any other special purpose label inserted in the stack and would be at par with current MSD type “Base MPLS Imposition MSD” ( https://www.iana.org/assignments/igp-parameters/igp-parameters.xhtml ).
>  
>  
> --
> Uma C.
> _______________________________________________
> Lsr mailing list
> Lsr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr