Re: [mpls-tp] [PWE3] [mpls] WG LC draft-lm-pwe3-mpls-tp-gal-in-pw-00.txt
Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Wed, 23 March 2011 20:55 UTC
Return-Path: <gregimirsky@gmail.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 0609C3A694C; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 13:55:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.723
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.723 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.125, 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 s87bvyV0xvNg; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 13:55:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vx0-f172.google.com (mail-vx0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC3923A68D6; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 13:55:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vxg33 with SMTP id 33so7539893vxg.31 for <multiple recipients>; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 13:57:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=NATeo5XlpGZjwKhbS8DSmt+xmeeeS6PxwljJdmX/Lb8=; b=aKWN0f/v5jdXOL7vKGrnEOvs7roOATLrTQxzbZzQ/dxUH8eMd3DreItestBsdmv3fg nZoXDlDVF1eeeeSMy48akcPOBNTAFTwFttVZCoxiz3A7+rtTrthAKMtZOKqssIrxt+J3 53pi/vk4dw8emxVUxTmkPjRlqydHwVeTxnaCk=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=gSqBhoGDxJLTTUB4rH+akqz2yPlrggnRbrRLWIovu9zl6CL/z+0H7admn5+qON3m5u Irbsu8EP+lwpKkU2gKXEOe1dwk6IbgT9Fsje2Wjs24ZT5SCZPrHCWXZgEt53DlwCOaQZ odXVGNW5DfWFTYdOqQ8S9HcZT176drjE449hI=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.67.73 with SMTP id l9mr7406761vdt.287.1300913835406; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 13:57:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.168.6 with HTTP; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 13:57:15 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <201103232025.p2NKPr2t076600@harbor.orleans.occnc.com>
References: <4D88E3A7.4040502@cisco.com> <201103232025.p2NKPr2t076600@harbor.orleans.occnc.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 13:57:15 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTikNZH9w2iNRVwUAMmzJ2ktkjSfcdssNbEFvgNpr@mail.gmail.com>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
To: curtis@occnc.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="20cf307f32040af5a2049f2c9b4c"
Cc: Robert Rennison <Robert.Rennison@ecitele.com>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "mpls-tp@ietf.org" <mpls-tp@ietf.org>, "lihan@chinamobile.com" <lihan@chinamobile.com>, pwe3 <pwe3@ietf.org>, HUANG Feng F <Feng.f.Huang@alcatel-sbell.com.cn>
Subject: Re: [mpls-tp] [PWE3] [mpls] WG LC draft-lm-pwe3-mpls-tp-gal-in-pw-00.txt
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: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 20:55:44 -0000
Dear Curtis and All, I believe that any restriction on placing GAL in a label stack set in Section 4.2, RFC 5886 is relevant only for MPLS-TP PSN. For non-TP PSNs there are no restrictions set in RFC 5886 on where in a label stack GAL might appear. Some of use cases mentioned by Curtis are outside of MPLS-TP scope and, as I understand, use of GAL in these cases is not regulated by the RFC 5886. As to the issue of using GAL in PW there would not be a problem if not for possible conflict with PW VCCV CC Type 1. If GAL presents PW VCCV CC Type 4, properly updates RFC 5085, and for MPLS-TP PWs complies with the RFC 5886 - we might be good. Regards, Greg On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 1:25 PM, Curtis Villamizar <curtis@occnc.com> wrote: > > In message <4D88E3A7.4040502@cisco.com> > Stewart Bryant writes: > > > > If there is IETF consensus to update RFC5586 with this change then the > > process is relatively simple: > > > > The document making the update notes that it does the update, and the AD > > draws attention to > > this in the IETF LC. > > > > Stewart > > > Stewart, > > The restriction that GAL be at the bottom of stack was simply a > mistake IMHO. I stated that during MPLS WG discussion before it > became an RFC but it went through as is anyway with that restriction. > Even then it was said that if there were a strong reason to relax it > that it could be considered later. That time may have come. > > There are a number of reasons that labels might want to go below GAL, > including to use OAM to diagnose the connectivity (or lack of) that is > experienced only for a specific label stack combinations where > multipath (link bundle, LAG, less applicable is ECMP in this case) is > used. > > In this case though, the GAL under the LSP label currently indicates > that after the POP that OAM needs to be done (or more accurately that > a G-Ach of some type is being carried). If the GAL is put above the > PW label it is in that same place and there is an ambiguity. It is an > ambiguity that for some but not all defined OAM can be resolved by > looking at information in BFD that makes it unambiguous. Unless I'm > mistaken, in CC/CV the label stack above GAL provides the context. > > Another solution would be to put GAL under the PW label. It would > probably be best to put GAL under PW but over the fat-pw label. The > PW implementation, seeing the PW was not BOS, could look at the next > label to see if the label is reserved and specifically if it is GAL, > and if not process as payload (unless CW is also used). If CW was not > used the only advantage is 4 bytes less in payload but the same size > in OAM packets. This is an advantage though. > > On a related topic, if we must put ELI plus entropy label on the stack > we have saved nothing relative to fat-pw plus CW. ELI as a > termination of hash search may have other uses though (MPLS-TP). > > I would be in favor of a very short draft just relaxing the > requirement that GAL be at the bottom of stack, independent of the > reason for doing so, since a number of reasons have emerged. The > behavior would be to throw away the rest of the label stack when the > GAL label is exposed and look at the MPLS payload interpreting it as > an G-Ach channel (most often, but not exclusively, as OAM). This > relaxation of the BOS restriction would be independent of usage. > > Curtis > > > > On 22/03/2011 16:22, Robert Rennison wrote: > > > > > > Luca, Thomas, > > > > > > A couple of clarification questions. > > > > > > I'm trying to understand what the combination of the two drafts, > > > -lm-pwe3-mpls-tp-gal-in-pw, and draft-nadeau-pwe3-vccv-2amounts to. > > > > > > So, I think I understood the draft-nadeau-pwe3-vccv-2 in that it's > > > saying use VCCV type 1 where possible and if not then use the new type > > > 4, whereby in type 4 the exception mechanism is triggered by the use > > > of the GAL, and I appreciated the diagram in section 3 to lock this > > > is, so far so good. > > > > > > Now I read -pwe3-mpls-tp-gal-in-pw and I'm thinking , Ok these two > > > drafts could work together since this one is trying to lay the "legal > > > framework" i.e fix up the RFCs which mandated that the GAL could not > > > be used with the PW. > > > > > > Then I get hit with a brick wall in the form of the statements in the > > > last 2 paras of section 3 of tp-gal-in-pw which state. > > > > > > - Section 4.2 > > > < > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lm-pwe3-mpls-tp-gal-in-pw-00#section-4.2 > >. > > > (GAL Applicability and Usage) in [RFC5586 > > > <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5586>], the > > > > > > original text: > > > > > > In MPLS-TP, the GAL MUST be used with packets on a G-ACh on > > > > > > LSPs, Concatenated Segments of LSPs, and with Sections, and > > > > > > MUST NOT be used with PWs. It MUST always be at the bottom of > > > > > > the label stack (i.e., S bit set to 1). However, in other > MPLS > > > > > > environments, this document places no restrictions on where > > > > > > the GAL may appear within the label stack or its use with > PWs. > > > > > > is replaced by: > > > > > > In MPLS-TP, the GAL MUST be used with packets on a G-ACh on > > > > > > LSPs, Concatenated Segments of LSPs, and with Sections, and > > > > > > MAY be used with PWs. It MUST always be at the bottom of the > > > > > > label stack (i.e., S bit set to 1). However, in other MPLS > > > > > > environments, this document places no restrictions on where > > > > > > the GAL may appear within the label stack. > > > > > > It's the bit about the GAL MUST be at the bottom of the label stack, > > > this is clearly inconsistent with what is proposed in the > > > draft-nadeau-pwe3 where one can clearly see the GAL above the PW label > > > and if one has to use a GAL with a PW this would be the place to put > it, > > > > > > Now I can hear you saying "oh but look at the text below this, where > > > we state .."However, in other MPLS environments , this document places > > > no restrictions on where the GAL may appear within the label stack. > > > This is consistent with draft-nadeau " In which case I'd retort with > > > ; what are we to do for PWs in MPLS-TP, since what's in draft-nadeau > > > would not be allowed ? > > > > > > Clarification /explanation appreciated. > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > Rob Rennison > > > > [snipped ...]
- Re: [mpls-tp] [mpls] WG LC draft-lm-pwe3-mpls-tp-… Greg Mirsky
- [mpls-tp] WG LC draft-lm-pwe3-mpls-tp-gal-in-pw-0… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [mpls-tp] WG LC draft-lm-pwe3-mpls-tp-gal-in-… Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: [mpls-tp] WG LC draft-lm-pwe3-mpls-tp-gal-in-… neil.2.harrison
- Re: [mpls-tp] [mpls] WG LC draft-lm-pwe3-mpls-tp-… Luca Martini
- Re: [mpls-tp] [PWE3] WG LC draft-lm-pwe3-mpls-tp-… Shahram Davari
- Re: [mpls-tp] [mpls] WG LC draft-lm-pwe3-mpls-tp-… Luca Martini
- Re: [mpls-tp] [mpls] WG LC draft-lm-pwe3-mpls-tp-… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [mpls-tp] [mpls] WG LC draft-lm-pwe3-mpls-tp-… Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: [mpls-tp] [mpls] WG LC draft-lm-pwe3-mpls-tp-… venkatesan mahalingam
- Re: [mpls-tp] [PWE3] [mpls] WG LC draft-lm-pwe3-m… Thomas Nadeau
- Re: [mpls-tp] [mpls] WG LC draft-lm-pwe3-mpls-tp-… Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: [mpls-tp] [mpls] WG LC draft-lm-pwe3-mpls-tp-… Robert Rennison
- Re: [mpls-tp] [PWE3] [mpls] WG LC draft-lm-pwe3-m… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [mpls-tp] [PWE3] [mpls] WG LC draft-lm-pwe3-m… Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: [mpls-tp] [PWE3] [mpls] WG LC draft-lm-pwe3-m… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [mpls-tp] [PWE3] [mpls] WG LC draft-lm-pwe3-m… Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: [mpls-tp] [PWE3] [mpls] WG LC draft-lm-pwe3-m… Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [mpls-tp] [PWE3] [mpls] WG LC draft-lm-pwe3-m… Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: [mpls-tp] [PWE3] [mpls] WG LC draft-lm-pwe3-m… Curtis Villamizar