IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mpls-tp] [PWE3] Proposal of using GAL for PW

Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com> Mon, 05 July 2010 08:38 UTC

Return-Path: <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>
X-Original-To: mpls-tp@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls-tp@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E1263A6823; Mon, 5 Jul 2010 01:38:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.722
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.722 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.876, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nN+8r2YixCBA; Mon, 5 Jul 2010 01:38:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ilptbmg01.ecitele.com (ilptbmg01-out.ecitele.com [147.234.242.234]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6ADDC3A672E; Mon, 5 Jul 2010 01:38:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: 93eaf2e7-b7c13ae0000042a1-74-4c319a021a8f
Received: from ILPTEXCH02.ecitele.com ( [147.234.245.181]) by ilptbmg01.ecitele.com (Symantec Brightmail Gateway) with SMTP id 38.4B.17057.20A913C4; Mon, 5 Jul 2010 11:38:27 +0300 (IDT)
Received: from ILPTMAIL02.ecitele.com ([147.234.244.212]) by ILPTEXCH02.ecitele.com ([147.234.245.181]) with mapi; Mon, 5 Jul 2010 11:38:26 +0300
From: Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>
To: "BUSI, ITALO (ITALO)" <italo.busi@alcatel-lucent.com>, "stbryant@cisco.com" <stbryant@cisco.com>, Shahram Davari <davari@broadcom.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2010 11:38:41 +0300
Thread-Topic: [PWE3] [mpls-tp] Proposal of using GAL for PW
Thread-Index: AcsZyGN0IxBPyQW3RsiJBXvOYSLH1gCUsC9QAABmbbA=
Message-ID: <A3C5DF08D38B6049839A6F553B331C76D37F569A3D@ILPTMAIL02.ecitele.com>
References: <2C2F1EBA8050E74EA81502D5740B4BD6940E809263@SJEXCHCCR02.corp.ad.broadcom.com> <C8529DB4.4489A%giles.heron@gmail.com> <2C2F1EBA8050E74EA81502D5740B4BD6940E80926C@SJEXCHCCR02.corp.ad.broadcom.com> <4C2DB03F.7000709@cisco.com> <15740615FC9674499FBCE797B011623F0B730021@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com>
In-Reply-To: <15740615FC9674499FBCE797B011623F0B730021@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_A3C5DF08D38B6049839A6F553B331C76D37F569A3DILPTMAIL02eci_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Cc: "lihan@chinamobile.com" <lihan@chinamobile.com>, "pwe3@ietf.org" <pwe3@ietf.org>, "mpls-tp@ietf.org" <mpls-tp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls-tp] [PWE3] Proposal of using GAL for PW
X-BeenThere: mpls-tp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: MPLS-TP Mailing list <mpls-tp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp>, <mailto:mpls-tp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls-tp>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls-tp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-tp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp>, <mailto:mpls-tp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2010 08:38:36 -0000

Hi all,
IMHO and FWIW, while RFC 5586  (5886 looks like a typo to me) does not place any restrictions on using GAL in non-TP environments, its usefulness in these environments (where various forms of multipath, including usage of entropy labels,  cannot be precluded) for OAM purposes is somewhat problematic:
Adding GAL to the label stack changes this for the multipath mechanisms based on stack hashing, and fate-sharing of OAM and user traffic packets is not guaranteed any more.

My 2c,
     Sasha

From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of BUSI, ITALO (ITALO)
Sent: Monday, July 05, 2010 11:17 AM
To: stbryant@cisco.com; Shahram Davari
Cc: lihan@chinamobile.com; pwe3@ietf.org; mpls-tp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [PWE3] [mpls-tp] Proposal of using GAL for PW

I agree with Stewart.

The GAL MUST be at the BoS in MPLS-TP where ECMP is not applicable and entroy labels MUST NOT be used.

In other MPLS environments (e.g., where entropy labels are used), RFC 5886 does not place any restriction on the position of the GAL within the label stack.

Italo

________________________________
From: mpls-tp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-tp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stewart Bryant
Sent: venerdì 2 luglio 2010 11.24
To: Shahram Davari
Cc: Andy Malis; mpls-tp@ietf.org; lihan@chinamobile.com; pwe3@ietf.org; HUANG, Feng F (Feng)
Subject: Re: [mpls-tp] [PWE3] Proposal of using GAL for PW
On 01/07/2010 19:35, Shahram Davari wrote:
!mmm so if one used entropy then they can't have OAM?
-SD

Not so. The GAL goes above the entropy label (S=0), so gets parsed first. This works for both PHP and not PHP, and both LSP and PW.

- Stewart

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email