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

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Wed, 28 August 2019 21:30 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.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 B9299120089 for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 14:30:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=acHTUMoS; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=eNammNBT
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 16UDEiSRTERH for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 14:30:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D8156120059 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 14:30:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=26099; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1567027850; x=1568237450; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=cwKKG20ReS/dpe2EHISgdX29l2BflSc5SF06cpzEtsU=; b=acHTUMoSwiTELXHQtGnsfwOpUhiHN3+w8OjK9gyIVbqKC7kg10i5c6GB ZhRuALDLzxljAlEZtvRJLO4IfD8XPHr+LF2fcbPu/+S76piHr8o8v+7P+ rLh6BgiTCwYnvaEt0CmgLzyoVTbYtw/Dk+ZuJEJg4sO31ObE0d02EeMM+ Y=;
IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3Ar7z5HxwarU3zBeLXCy+N+z0EezQntrPoPwUc9p?= =?us-ascii?q?sgjfdUf7+++4j5YRGN/u1j2VnOW4iTq+lJjebbqejBYSQB+t7A+GsHbIQKUh?= =?us-ascii?q?YEjcsMmAl1CcWIBGXwLeXhaGoxG8ERHFI=3D?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AkAQBW8WZd/5JdJa1lGgEBAQEBAgE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEHAgEBAQGBZ4EWLyQsA21WIAQLKoQhg0cDim5Ngg9+lmyCUgNUCQEBAQw?= =?us-ascii?q?BASUIAgEBhD8CF4I5IzgTAgMIAQEEAQEBAgEGBG2FLgyFSgEBAQEDEhEdAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?pDw8CAQgRAwEBASgDAgICMBQJCAIEARIigwABgR1NAx0BAgyiNwKBOIhhc4E?= =?us-ascii?q?ygnwBAQWFBBiCFgMGgTSLdxiBf4ERJx+CFzU+gmEBAQIBgXUJDQmCVTKCJo8?= =?us-ascii?q?ihReJDI48CQKCHoZtjWMbgjKHMYQcilqNbIdvjgqCOAIEAgQFAg4BAQWBZyG?= =?us-ascii?q?BWHAVZQGCQYJCg3KFFIU/cgGBKI4HAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.64,442,1559520000"; d="scan'208,217";a="625358088"
Received: from rcdn-core-10.cisco.com ([173.37.93.146]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 28 Aug 2019 21:30:49 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-004.cisco.com (xch-rcd-004.cisco.com [173.37.102.14]) by rcdn-core-10.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x7SLUnmk018174 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 28 Aug 2019 21:30:49 GMT
Received: from xhs-rcd-002.cisco.com (173.37.227.247) by XCH-RCD-004.cisco.com (173.37.102.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 16:30:48 -0500
Received: from xhs-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.227.246) by xhs-rcd-002.cisco.com (173.37.227.247) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 16:30:48 -0500
Received: from NAM04-SN1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (72.163.14.9) by xhs-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.227.246) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 16:30:48 -0500
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=Fmekhdd5Puw3tDEsX2hCnRoDNH141h9SnnTlQJoolV/G0b6TkhNcIxkWxBSKz1BzlKCAVjIT71AMFr39t7Ow4fik2/q68Xr+IUsy/gtov1bOL9DfPJIwYxPqSJCIVasvYiiZYfj+ap2Qlr/bjKxoph5v0r1T7RRk5pRqRfc/0/6qNlYdYbhD4lNCkh/GwmRWosQPjouOXRjNdp4nT+f1D7ErO+3rg82TrP2oBsuBaNouZWf4f349s9rcxZZug1ZPeDC3MZx+E1M4IRGlzEkCoT4+KB+LDmXY9syYo+Qmk9yXfh9zhZoMritb1XRRLGtTbHp/BsXjicq5IcxALSXd/g==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=cwKKG20ReS/dpe2EHISgdX29l2BflSc5SF06cpzEtsU=; b=X6ytPvvRCIp8xGvv3pcjmKb7l/OaLBU2gBaqCKBaII31+eUu62HyBawe50rUqDwa8J6hNgD42bP0A5l72wCQT1XYwvZ/Y/w8iJeSikewgvdfH2XGY4HXqWudw2Jhg2tWUmFoNS3USVsiFtQC5RlglwtDfpjrCXfwl9XyFQSIXFZGl5Pr+l3wF8hAeHPD8o4X0xSpPvGc5Jyqp3xkeOMG+pLhiyBFBf1dgc34QeKyQIBY8OuCXjMUS4KIYboach+Pmti4xp1rkNMOmeCJ+AG1LxYVIQ3or0QyKqJ6rgNhqdghObCnpPv4pQ2rzmCSK5+m7dCX+JRZdQO4Ve1WqHmrnQ==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=cwKKG20ReS/dpe2EHISgdX29l2BflSc5SF06cpzEtsU=; b=eNammNBTZE0/PQ3comZHmCzKluEfdEH8K2zecGcONlLXAUt9CSvXgw6vx7I9vU64nAQhen8ad4hOxjWbtDTyK2w6Z1j0iBgNMrXI7Qli6dN9uoUrsROOaaaMRZJOPixDFXmNoNCLfgMyrQyUx1YsKmkD7B49TFja8wx6zaQ0FAs=
Received: from MN2PR11MB4221.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (52.135.38.14) by MN2PR11MB3773.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (20.178.253.160) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2199.21; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 21:30:47 +0000
Received: from MN2PR11MB4221.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::cdc1:a2cf:eb3:a420]) by MN2PR11MB4221.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::cdc1:a2cf:eb3:a420%6]) with mapi id 15.20.2199.021; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 21:30:47 +0000
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>, Uma Chunduri <uma.chunduri@futurewei.com>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Lsr] draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-07
Thread-Index: AQHVXd/ksSeWFROOokmGeVd/cL8YDqcRBXTQ///B0oCAAEPG8P//xdoA
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2019 21:30:46 +0000
Message-ID: <2C160FA5-28ED-4B07-8A37-5F1A7E5AB73E@cisco.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>
In-Reply-To: <BYAPR11MB3638B39096DD691416307957C1A30@BYAPR11MB3638.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=acee@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [2001:420:c0c4:1007::96]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 9ce6552b-29f6-49cb-acb4-08d72bfefd74
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(5600166)(711020)(4605104)(1401327)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:MN2PR11MB3773;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MN2PR11MB3773:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 4
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <MN2PR11MB3773D2A86E9CF55CFD445582C2A30@MN2PR11MB3773.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 014304E855
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(4636009)(396003)(346002)(39860400002)(376002)(366004)(136003)(199004)(189003)(33656002)(110136005)(476003)(2616005)(25786009)(446003)(102836004)(966005)(46003)(6486002)(6306002)(2906002)(486006)(6246003)(316002)(76176011)(256004)(53546011)(66476007)(11346002)(606006)(229853002)(14454004)(99286004)(14444005)(53936002)(6512007)(66556008)(8676002)(7736002)(6116002)(71190400001)(236005)(9326002)(5660300002)(81166006)(81156014)(86362001)(478600001)(71200400001)(2501003)(66446008)(54896002)(36756003)(6506007)(76116006)(6436002)(64756008)(66946007)(186003)(8936002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:MN2PR11MB3773; H:MN2PR11MB4221.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: t/DECJfxiqdC7pJQP4fAnaFwTOYANuP0vIYIGPc9f0EJxOJNWDNCmH+d/eEFHMBAbapIvEG6Lq/UIlL9IimpVtl4a+8SjY8R3ABUsiJGCuXjtRvkwNsN1WyY/qm1H1LZDH4xxir/DJLLonl+qLZrU5rOL1BvOPKzGljGzKUjn7DgjsyzlechUcxlmwm8R52k8TqHA6rITd1SNTm7EvOR7o0lxPAyfCZk/byrCYb43lx5uClBNGRtAMCxzPWGBYFjy0dcJKDDLTWqMNcrp8tsYU45JWxZvUQW9Vvz+/m1JRsqPfPsU1d7E4EAFwvtzwOaSq4RlgybIESGD1k1KN3aCufKlHvbbpVViNPFawEmz3e+gTQfWs2s9EGcOaljBJEGmxyVMERs6ABhN/fcb+EkdhG9XPS5Qwi7hBsXiT9YBa4=
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_2C160FA528ED4B078A375F1A7E5AB73Eciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 9ce6552b-29f6-49cb-acb4-08d72bfefd74
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 28 Aug 2019 21:30:46.9014 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: HU5TFX6meo15J8b67dRuMwU33+cqaF+N9YhGRvemu9/QoP3YXJR40aTPP1kr8c9v
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MN2PR11MB3773
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.14, xch-rcd-004.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-10.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/seDKifwgxN6hvIoEdbZj9reEqUo>
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: Wed, 28 Aug 2019 21:30:54 -0000

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<mailto:ginsberg@cisco.com>>
Date: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 4:46 PM
To: Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com<mailto:acee@cisco.com>>, Uma Chunduri <uma.chunduri@futurewei.com<mailto:uma.chunduri@futurewei.com>>, "lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org>" <lsr@ietf.org<mailto: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<mailto:acee@cisco.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 1:34 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg@cisco.com<mailto:ginsberg@cisco.com>>; Uma Chunduri <uma.chunduri@futurewei.com<mailto:uma.chunduri@futurewei.com>>; lsr@ietf.org<mailto: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<mailto:lsr-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com<mailto:ginsberg@cisco.com>>
Date: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 4:29 PM
To: Uma Chunduri <uma.chunduri@futurewei.com<mailto:uma.chunduri@futurewei.com>>, "lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org>" <lsr@ietf.org<mailto: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<mailto:lsr-bounces@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Uma Chunduri
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 11:38 AM
To: lsr@ietf.org<mailto: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.