[Lsr] Entropy label for SR-MPLS

<bruno.decraene@orange.com> Mon, 03 September 2018 12:06 UTC

Return-Path: <bruno.decraene@orange.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 3303A130E0C; Mon, 3 Sep 2018 05:06:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 HD3IWTOq0jqV; Mon, 3 Sep 2018 05:06:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from orange.com (mta241.mail.business.static.orange.com [80.12.66.41]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 03DE412F1A2; Mon, 3 Sep 2018 05:06:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from opfedar06.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.8]) by opfedar22.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 423pbv31ypz2ykx; Mon, 3 Sep 2018 14:06:51 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.31.58]) by opfedar06.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 423pbv1yfWz3wbB; Mon, 3 Sep 2018 14:06:51 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from OPEXCLILM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::e92a:c932:907e:8f06]) by OPEXCLILM33.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::3881:fc15:b4b2:9017%19]) with mapi id 14.03.0408.000; Mon, 3 Sep 2018 14:06:50 +0200
From: bruno.decraene@orange.com
To: "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc@ietf.org>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Entropy label for SR-MPLS
Thread-Index: AdRDfmJEvDXqHVCdQUmNMYMho3GQxA==
Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2018 12:06:50 +0000
Message-ID: <15634_1535976411_5B8D23DB_15634_337_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A47B2DCFC@OPEXCLILM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.168.234.4]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A47B2DCFCOPEXCLILM21corp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/hVoP9ArbCvO2SmeEnVlLCUWhVrk>
Subject: [Lsr] Entropy label for SR-MPLS
X-BeenThere: lsr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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: Mon, 03 Sep 2018 12:06:55 -0000

Hi SPRING WG,

draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc defines an IS-IS extension to allow the use of MPLS entropy labels in SR-MPLS networks.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-05

As a reminder, entropy label has been defined in RFC 6790 by the MPLS WG. It improves load-balancing / allows the effective use of parallel paths. It requires a signaling and RFC 6790 defined it for LDP, RSVP-TE and BGP. As segment routing does not uses LDP nor RSVP-TE, an IGP extension is indeed required. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6790

As of today (-05) the IGP encoding chosen by draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc:
- may support inter-area/level deployments, albeit with additional complexity (currently not specified)
- does not support inter-AS and inter-protocol deployments. (Inter-protocol being the redistribution of prefixes/segments from a protocol (instance) to another IGP protocol (instance))

Following some discussions, this restriction is not an IGP technical issue as it would be easy to allow for this feature by using a different IGP encoding. It's a question of requirements so it would be better discussed in the SPRING WG.

I'd like to see a discussion on whether this restriction is a good or a bad thing from a SPRING requirement standpoint.
In other words, do we want to allow (or not) the use of entropy label in inter-AS and inter-protocol deployments or do we accept this regression compared to LDP and RSVP-TE?

Thanks,
Regards,
--Bruno

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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.