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

["Acee Lindem (acee)" <[e-mail]>]

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)" <[e-mail]>
Date: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 4:59 PM
To: Acee Lindem <[e-mail]>, Uma Chunduri <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [Lsr] draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-07

Point taken…

  Les

From: Acee Lindem (acee) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 1:56 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[e-mail]>; Uma Chunduri <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
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)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 4:46 PM
To: Acee Lindem <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Uma Chunduri <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
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) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 1:34 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Uma Chunduri <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
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 <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 4:29 PM
To: Uma Chunduri <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
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 <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Uma Chunduri
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 11:38 AM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
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.