Re: [Lsr] [RTG-DIR] RtgDir Review: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-15

"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <> Tue, 02 October 2018 18:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4902131197; Tue, 2 Oct 2018 11:20:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.956
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.956 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.456, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id c4WHoujQePeY; Tue, 2 Oct 2018 11:20:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 97700131161; Tue, 2 Oct 2018 11:20:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=22036; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1538504406; x=1539714006; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=v9NrEfUkr1uFHn0bBPERMPo2eHv1So6QdwTjtLlcm3g=; b=MV1DLDJ2Afyh2NG9rpUN7dY9/FQEYDyeSGQJNXStHxCxtUNs9rZAJEcd 1aF/B4iUxwlMW8kDd8T3cYtOd0WY+3Yw1fK2HESsnGuliKaQ/C4oOtw2P uvmYRHFOvCgp7UrlDnuxVDri3C6+gU6czsm+lqK/zIDPTBX/A0ASwaNHT Y=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.54,332,1534809600"; d="scan'208,217";a="463687230"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 02 Oct 2018 18:19:41 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id w92IJfTE009190 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 2 Oct 2018 18:19:41 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Tue, 2 Oct 2018 13:19:40 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1395.000; Tue, 2 Oct 2018 13:19:40 -0500
From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <>
To: "" <>, Alvaro Retana <>, MEURIC Julien IMT/OLN <>
CC: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir Review: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-15
Thread-Index: AQHUSRr9GtZ+0d9dH0WUMIG4HP6jZqT++7dQgAD3yQCAAyVlkIABQdiAgAB9BYD//7bIUIABNiaAgAAwi6CABl/CgP//8sOw
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2018 18:19:40 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <4412_1538121729_5BADE001_4412_375_54_f1c05c2e-62d0-437b-af0b-a5a20073f31b@OPEXCLILM6F.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <> <16694_1538482569_5BB36189_16694_463_1_157d2475-3635-4182-bab6-55555b122ac9@OPEXCLILM5D.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
In-Reply-To: <16694_1538482569_5BB36189_16694_463_1_157d2475-3635-4182-bab6-55555b122ac9@OPEXCLILM5D.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_413ebd13467d407cb6740c8b2af6d48dXCHALN001ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] [RTG-DIR] RtgDir Review: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-15
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Link State Routing Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2018 18:20:15 -0000

Bruno –

Trimming the thread…

[Les2:] Label imposition is meant to cover both the SWAP operation and the PUSH operation. In the example you provided above where a label stack of “12” is replaced by a label stack of “14,15” the number of labels “imposed” is 2.
[Bruno2] In that case, I definitely think that the discussion was useful and that this point needs to be clarified in the document.
Whether you choose to call that (1 POP, 2 PUSH) or (1 SWAP, 1 PUSH)  or simply a SWAP isn’t relevant here (though it might matter to folks like the RFC 3031 authors).

With that ibn mind, here is proposed text:

“Base MPLS Imposition MSD (BMI-MSD) signals the total number of MPLS
   labels which can be imposed, including all service/transport/special
   labels.  Imposition includes swap and/or push operations.

If the advertising router performs label imposition in the context of
   the ingress interface, it is not possible to meaningfully advertise
   per link values.  In such a case only the Node MSD SHOULD be

[Bruno2] Given that the term “imposition” does not seem to be defined within the IETF, I would still favor a formal definition not using it. e.g. “BMI-MSD advertises the ability to increase the depth of the label stack by BMI-MSD labels”.
Alternatively, I’d propose the following rewording which seems clearer to me:
OLD: Imposition includes swap and/or push operations.
NEW: A swap operation counts as an imposition of one label; just like one push operation.

[Les3:] This gets into implementation specific issues that I would really like to avoid.
For example, some implementations perform one and only one  “operation”. Conceptually that may involve a swap and a push – but from the internal implementation POV it is simply one operation. And this may be true regardless of how many labels are involved. Other implementations might perform this in several discrete steps. The language we use here should not imply anything about how many labels are associated with a specific operation.

The term “increase” isn’t accurate because in the case of a swap there is no increase, yet the label which is replaced is counted. is relevant here.

The term “imposition” is generic – and as Alvaro has pointed out is used in RFC 4221. And the language proposed above does define the relationship between “swap and push” and “imposition”.

I appreciate your desire for clarity – and I am still open to new language – but at this point I still think what I proposed is  the most accurate.