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

Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 29 August 2019 04:00 UTC

Return-Path: <jefftant.ietf@gmail.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 7CA74120273 for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 21:00:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 wcP4eFZU7cvY for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 21:00:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x42f.google.com (mail-pf1-x42f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 394FE1201AA for <lsr@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 21:00:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x42f.google.com with SMTP id w26so1114868pfq.12 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 21:00:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=GsWR2XqoNs94x70uJl+gQ/mvWgOpCCdUd8RWq5/hVCw=; b=UUcz8V972hRRjT4l4fhPWgONUaJoJZHn9a6q05UolJLVMSbIPnc9sMdM/7/oCyGp+n euLw/x0uMmavRf2dFTplvEa1P4qWKK8ZhwOox3oekhKXaHRohs97/uhsz/o0ZBU4XFoE tIEktxGe8OYrpYJnK8mII5serEU42gs2nB6tzstpDXS0Fg8pnu6ZAMFlO+Qn+9H4akuZ 5YQvuQat22lwgICD0YwAwVb+feZGMr0xhimwULoFaZMUuqTffJ2V+VlB79N4z2MSu3q4 fp+pDb6kI3rhuguWmrUB6Jecv/HbOQLAASXJIvmV7cHwnAyChFaU4TkFbYPkntSaEKih qOCQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=GsWR2XqoNs94x70uJl+gQ/mvWgOpCCdUd8RWq5/hVCw=; b=h+8Zmbe9A1xksQ75lVrKI/u4QxRmynzQf1G++q2IDL06mTY6GBcqaUQmqOcvSSf4Hq c8PEL7eMuYsfugJKakfeIdSZdVmZA4RzYZXPzXtBuzhCWXi/KqTieGwFYJiyMypPLPgy WGJEDrmwfHId0xiPzekT26S5r2uf7NhshKqz4c23nlvtcZc/bzJY/xTgevQT5SawzVLV wU5uoXxlYbM/5lRxOaBT2UO7NNqdafQFj4Vw1O6PSVIXnWp4dFoQxETf/tBIbLXmv3Z1 r8yMkP1n9W1mHJYRGkYKSB1aH2PpnoYe/jlChWIZhGKpDnW3sogb62mUYFEpF3hYocCg A5Og==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWKt2dMFBlPRqr2zOPPF4mvEO1rEVDqj1jEjXFTBJl9PELLN2OW LTnpe7Ev0tEw5P6cTxrN1is=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqz+nCnYxXzNqC4vIIpnGSXAtHTuHUJvcMJck6J7w11ggudpFPHS7WQD8sEH+D/KhCUYTs/tFA==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:20d:: with SMTP id 13mr6517724pgc.253.1567051242538; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 21:00:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.15] (c-73-189-13-44.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [73.189.13.44]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d128sm1253234pfa.42.2019.08.28.21.00.41 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 28 Aug 2019 21:00:41 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-1FC8FD19-EDF8-49CE-B204-A56CA6AE9DEB
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (16G77)
In-Reply-To: <2C160FA5-28ED-4B07-8A37-5F1A7E5AB73E@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2019 21:00:40 -0700
Cc: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>, Uma Chunduri <uma.chunduri@futurewei.com>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <B87754F7-E2CB-403D-96EA-4E7C16F20FE8@gmail.com>
References: <BAE7E3E4-F817-43DA-BA7E-34E31A16E562@cisco.com> <BYAPR11MB3638247F602F41AC87FB3E16C1A30@BYAPR11MB3638.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <4BBEA66D-0B41-43E6-8CDE-1E0428988718@cisco.com> <BYAPR11MB3638B39096DD691416307957C1A30@BYAPR11MB3638.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <2C160FA5-28ED-4B07-8A37-5F1A7E5AB73E@cisco.com>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/guQDpPhfovYvWiFhNbQv7BtIdNw>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-07
X-BeenThere: lsr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 29 Aug 2019 04:00:46 -0000

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>om>, Uma Chunduri <uma.chunduri@futurewei.com>om>, "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>om>; Uma Chunduri <uma.chunduri@futurewei.com>om>; 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>om>, Uma Chunduri <uma.chunduri@futurewei.com>om>, "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>om>; Uma Chunduri <uma.chunduri@futurewei.com>om>; 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>om>, "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