Re: [mpls] nits and question on draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-02

Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Sun, 12 February 2017 03:01 UTC

Return-Path: <loa@pi.nu>
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 3A89F12950A; Sat, 11 Feb 2017 19:01:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 xFaOSmf08z2M; Sat, 11 Feb 2017 19:01:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pipi.pi.nu (pipi.pi.nu [83.168.239.141]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7AC77128874; Sat, 11 Feb 2017 19:01:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.11] (unknown [112.204.169.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: loa@pi.nu) by pipi.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 96DB918013DA; Sun, 12 Feb 2017 04:01:03 +0100 (CET)
To: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
References: <D4C4B5FD.9C23E%acee@cisco.com> <D713341E-F21A-4632-BB1D-0880FF36C9EF@cisco.com> <D4C4C7FA.9C253%acee@cisco.com> <A9C6442D-12AA-4CD8-9F9C-76B0CBF42AC5@cisco.com> <D4C4F29D.9C26B%acee@cisco.com> <AE1C8AAB-40E8-4457-A739-20A1231F0839@cisco.com>
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
Message-ID: <f31f6a9f-48e7-40b8-1657-7112160cf9f9@pi.nu>
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2017 11:00:54 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <AE1C8AAB-40E8-4457-A739-20A1231F0839@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/1V7qPcVCxwmT4qpjIR6g9n4cpu0>
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "mpls-chairs@ietf.org" <mpls-chairs@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] nits and question on draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-02
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Sun, 12 Feb 2017 03:01:19 -0000

Carlos and Acee,

OK - I agree.

Authors,

can you update the document with the other changes discussed?

/Loa

/Loa

On 2017-02-12 06:25, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) wrote:
> I agree, Acee.
>
>
>
> *From: *"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
> *Date: *Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 4:59 PM
> *To: *Carlos Pignataro <cpignata@cisco.com>
> *Cc: *Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>nu>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>rg>,
> "mpls-chairs@ietf.org" <mpls-chairs@ietf.org>rg>,
> "draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping@ietf.org"
> <draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping@ietf.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [mpls] nits and question on
> draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-02
>
>
>
> Hi Carlos,
>
>
>
> *From: *"Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com
> <mailto:cpignata@cisco.com>>
> *Date: *Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 2:16 PM
> *To: *Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com <mailto:acee@cisco.com>>
> *Cc: *Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu <mailto:loa@pi.nu>>, "mpls@ietf.org
> <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>" <mpls@ietf.org <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>>,
> "mpls-chairs@ietf.org <mailto:mpls-chairs@ietf.org>"
> <mpls-chairs@ietf.org <mailto:mpls-chairs@ietf.org>>,
> "draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping@ietf.org
> <mailto:draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping@ietf.org>"
> <draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping@ietf.org
> <mailto:draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping@ietf.org>>
> *Subject: *Re: [mpls] nits and question on
> draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-02
>
>
>
>     Hi Acee,
>
>
>
>         On Feb 11, 2017, at 2:02 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com
>         <mailto:acee@cisco.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
>         Hi Carlos,
>
>
>
>         I guess I commented without knowing the context of the comment
>         ;^) See inline.
>
>
>
>         *From: *"Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com
>         <mailto:cpignata@cisco.com>>
>         *Date: *Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 1:29 PM
>         *To: *Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com <mailto:acee@cisco.com>>
>         *Cc: *Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu <mailto:loa@pi.nu>>,
>         "mpls@ietf.org <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>" <mpls@ietf.org
>         <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>>, "mpls-chairs@ietf.org
>         <mailto:mpls-chairs@ietf.org>" <mpls-chairs@ietf.org
>         <mailto:mpls-chairs@ietf.org>>,
>         "draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping@ietf.org
>         <mailto:draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping@ietf.org>"
>         <draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping@ietf.org
>         <mailto:draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping@ietf.org>>
>         *Subject: *Re: [mpls] nits and question on
>         draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-02
>
>
>
>             Hi, Acee,
>
>                 On Feb 11, 2017, at 12:40 PM, Acee Lindem (acee)
>                 <acee@cisco.com <mailto:acee@cisco.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
>                         And a last question, should BGP-LS be in that
>                         registry?
>
>
>                     I guess no until someone needs it?
>
>
>                 BGP-LS has its own set of registries.
>
>
>
>             Thanks. Yes. The question is whether to have a BGP-LS value
>             for the MPLS LSP Ping DDMAP
>             protocol: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-02#section-6
>
>
>
>         In that case, it might make sense to add a code point for BGP-LS
>         since it is the only way to advertise the SIDs (i.e, labels when
>         MPLS SR is the data plane) for BGP EPE as described
>         in https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid-04.txt.
>         However, one could argue that specifying BGP would suffice since
>         unless you are going to specify other BGP Address Families
>         (AFI/SAFI tuples) as individual protocols.
>
>
>
>
>
>     That’s exactly the question — use the BGP protocol or define a new
>     BGP-LS?
>
>
>
>     To me though, until someone sits down to do the BGP EPE LSP Ping
>     analysis, we should not assume one way or another.
>
>
>
> I’d vote to just use BGP rather than setting the precedent of a separate
> protocol ID for an AFI/SAFI – are we going to have a protocol ID for BGP
> L3VPN or BGP EVPN? I guess the question is, from an OAM perspective, how
> is the DDMAP protocol going to be used?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Acee
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     Thanks,
>
>
>
>     Carlos.
>
>
>
>         Thanks,
>
>         Acee
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>             Thanks,
>
>
>
>             Carlos.
>
>
>

-- 


Loa Andersson                        email: loa@mail01.huawei.com
Senior MPLS Expert                          loa@pi.nu
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64