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

"Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com> Sat, 11 February 2017 19:16 UTC

Return-Path: <cpignata@cisco.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 0606D129421; Sat, 11 Feb 2017 11:16:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.521
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.521 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, 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
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 mcnsnoFCbnh6; Sat, 11 Feb 2017 11:16:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-6.cisco.com (alln-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.142.93]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 124C21293EC; Sat, 11 Feb 2017 11:16:54 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=12700; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1486840614; x=1488050214; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=+vlABHzkfLzedb1y3BuG4i55BRwn2nlx91zJj59CrJY=; b=fCgO1uhZUOa93nx8Hfd7rjJJQA6iA+JSWj/0CcojaUmjHgz1Gur5UKF6 o//Nw+7BlVNxE3hsjaZ1vvnyuZl4CiIiGM7tv795MdBMLT698FPE43uhp Kf1lqMrwoVUIoW/d5onuCBsa1zXprpjiRtgRH3tmtkj+O5Z0t8+vNqDGP o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0BKAQDOYZ9Y/4YNJK1eGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBgm9jYXgRB4NSigiSDZAKhSyCDCyFdgIagmE/GAECAQEBAQEBAWI?= =?us-ascii?q?ohGkBAQEEI1YQAgEIEQMBAigDAgICMBQJCAIEDgWJag6vVYIli0kBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEYBYZMggWCaoR0gmYugjEFlVSGHgGGboslkQWTFAEfOIE?= =?us-ascii?q?AURVOAYQzHYFhdQGJKYEMAQEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.35,147,1484006400"; d="scan'208,217";a="384418663"
Received: from alln-core-12.cisco.com ([173.36.13.134]) by alln-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 11 Feb 2017 19:16:53 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-011.cisco.com (xch-aln-011.cisco.com [173.36.7.21]) by alln-core-12.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v1BJGro3022230 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sat, 11 Feb 2017 19:16:53 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-020.cisco.com (173.36.7.30) by XCH-ALN-011.cisco.com (173.36.7.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Sat, 11 Feb 2017 13:16:52 -0600
Received: from xch-aln-020.cisco.com ([173.36.7.30]) by XCH-ALN-020.cisco.com ([173.36.7.30]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Sat, 11 Feb 2017 13:16:52 -0600
From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [mpls] nits and question on draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-02
Thread-Index: AQHShI3kjsva65kUME2RMyZZz5c3mqFkhRMAgAAJCwCAAAQigA==
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2017 19:16:47 +0000
Message-ID: <A9C6442D-12AA-4CD8-9F9C-76B0CBF42AC5@cisco.com>
References: <D4C4B5FD.9C23E%acee@cisco.com> <D713341E-F21A-4632-BB1D-0880FF36C9EF@cisco.com> <D4C4C7FA.9C253%acee@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D4C4C7FA.9C253%acee@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.82.255.192]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_A9C6442D12AA4CD89F9C76B0CBF42AC5ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/2QnoHlInkQGYa7YKBpsZD17c2Gk>
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: Sat, 11 Feb 2017 19:16:56 -0000

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.

Thanks,

Carlos.

Thanks,
Acee




Thanks,

Carlos.