IETF Logo Mail Archive

[mpls] Comments on draft draft-cheng-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation

Tarek Saad <tsaad.net@gmail.com> Mon, 22 July 2019 13:33 UTC

Return-Path: <tsaad.net@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25B8112017F; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 06:33:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 MTrFogjgU5xn; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 06:33:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt1-x82c.google.com (mail-qt1-x82c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::82c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E79D120059; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 06:33:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt1-x82c.google.com with SMTP id w17so38465133qto.10; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 06:33:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:subject:thread-topic:thread-index:date:message-id :accept-language:content-language:mime-version; bh=qjEcw5g/XIBTq/qWYokENVxS6DJQJTD96cBV55AdbGk=; b=qEwtRLkRgvSFkZIU31JVatbulj00ZuNsLM3FW5QNTPGjntBgWkr3A7N7WFLUGudSF7 n3WFQ2dEHEqDT37xsXmjubL2AOsro30I1WHWa6ogl8+g7irhe5o9R5UFK1V7LK3mW06y XwmMRE/R1Y+IySWYLwW3cJ0anaauFrKbZYVKIr56IOOkjuXYeUViF4GwCdIbVJ4zGEJP r0pjmVKAByR4yyaAF/KyRJrJBPCFG2JQ6c6y0Fq6aOBgyprFbyStJFBsAr50fuGsiu8V SoxxIS3BNDlhOe5CYCwZRbX5w656PTNCA034lTI4nCibrLeaP9rnkXa06bJzAcwk9wU6 oksA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:thread-topic:thread-index :date:message-id:accept-language:content-language:mime-version; bh=qjEcw5g/XIBTq/qWYokENVxS6DJQJTD96cBV55AdbGk=; b=QWu3nrEYi5A64lXePXl8w02rA06SmBPw7kHBLK5wlUZcDhLxnJ81IbQ+iAIU8RX8nw RRVcn+UKnswf3pEcCjrs8nEzdx36WAFZeD+fNwkXwyq2pQFgaInv/WEr9E6qx0b7pe5Z I+NZubCKPPHrLFU/zpPIPTn3yJasMj0e4uFJzZq0Zv2aJFR9G/MTRXAscv9+KgIVTS9c WCRZVZ4m+fiT47fxvYWa/wc5XzE1yQPVmZrpx6T3iGR5lAgNN2Cvn1WrVB4Z4ie1C0s7 j59VcV2qYduSJgKFkAscl9o6/7411mRsOWuC4Z9I8RMeV1E1zJECbH9Y2BGxvJqf0v3w ebCg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAX5gU11MV7srTPvbr3ueb0qvj0o6AsaRIzTxw6011oC6dka0A2A 0ZBzmNtS7IrKg6A/rXGC2lf467vC
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqww/a5LLr93Ctrok6VHzueuIxOqyJWsRcU8lsKUJcpBz2xPpCUADwbvMcObV8mS3lv39x9jJQ==
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:1106:: with SMTP id c6mr9000447qtj.332.1563802431255; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 06:33:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BYAPR19MB3415.namprd19.prod.outlook.com ([2603:1036:307:293b::5]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r4sm28068611qta.93.2019.07.22.06.33.50 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 22 Jul 2019 06:33:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: Tarek Saad <tsaad.net@gmail.com>
To: "draft-cheng-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation@ietf.org" <draft-cheng-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation@ietf.org>
CC: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Comments on draft draft-cheng-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation
Thread-Index: AQHVQJIWax8TxKN6GECB1mNyFzhZnw==
X-MS-Exchange-MessageSentRepresentingType: 1
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 13:33:46 +0000
Message-ID: <BYAPR19MB3415E16096ADA1A714B09D93FCC40@BYAPR19MB3415.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-Exchange-Organization-SCL: -1
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
X-MS-Exchange-Organization-RecordReviewCfmType: 0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BYAPR19MB3415E16096ADA1A714B09D93FCC40BYAPR19MB3415namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/mpDCz5d9QTZOazDlF_dC5p7Os1U>
Subject: [mpls] Comments on draft draft-cheng-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mpls/>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 13:33:54 -0000

Hi authors,

>From reading your draft, have the following comments:

  *   There’s a similar proposal in draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sfl that the WG has worked on to achieve similar PM measurements. That proposal did not require a special label, nor requires carrying 2 new additional labels in label stack. Do you see any downside to the approach in draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sfl vs. the new one introduced one? If so, can this be highlighted.
  *   It appears that the label below the “Flow Indicator Label” is used to carry/embed context information: including a flow identifier and additional flags - that are set by ingress. Normally, MPLS labels do not embed any context information about the flow they carry within them. The context of the label is held by the node that allocates the label.

Regards,
Tarek

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email