IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mpls] Poll 2: New SPL vs re-purposed ELI for carrying Network Action Indicators

Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Tue, 31 May 2022 14:44 UTC

Return-Path: <gregimirsky@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 3A7E6C15BFFA; Tue, 31 May 2022 07:44:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.106
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.106 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v21WvhmB3qt4; Tue, 31 May 2022 07:44:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-x132.google.com (mail-lf1-x132.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::132]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A3BBAC15BFF9; Tue, 31 May 2022 07:44:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-x132.google.com with SMTP id c19so21828261lfv.5; Tue, 31 May 2022 07:44:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=/v70ZPmZpI4I5IeasvU5m7FZkMJb4kVdwzx4toCArlM=; b=Q6sz5P2yX+P2rbLvVqItUhAjvA3cK1q4mFwVJC7dv2f4sVPNY5ULkV1pYekOTxP4KQ 7Oyj6FmowJZD4eauMn6xr4M0rHTIhEwHvmF27P71ZugtYm2RSa6Y4un/c0e/2lFExFJA fS41IDN87k1LcD+82kyqyYun70cwmPQuiSA9Oo2RucLr9rPL/G5ppgLXQdsvAKBnDElR spmUrDiEH1qy74u4zSBgH0YfcB7CBruFpQTT2ina5V4t1dmHkWgY3Q+HxqkKmXY1zTPQ 6vAYHJTzjmX2Oo+uYBtPxnaDz2jKn5utPJ4WInhlXRg0sSJmHQOAkMWXh61Q/uks5+AG 4+Cg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=/v70ZPmZpI4I5IeasvU5m7FZkMJb4kVdwzx4toCArlM=; b=E6s316GVPywolm7HLj9sCItFZqBsSlumGlrVxRYwiPT05zOALDkwJ7Dgkkd/oXRKGt ITAS7S1FIeIIwCyqFco2FFQ9dhnvgClt4eyTor7iNfEFx2EFAT1vTWoQ+zhOXPAAbFqt 2JhrmRs9nCZIWzpjLFmY8S/iNQgMZr5o+TarWFEM47AYp7IayWgrWRQGjYAjwkYSIp/D hJ0W61t9X5npOAAMUfedcLofo5AR37BL6icgNyoeW5u8tk8QX5IiYHRJGFkdiXz6xIsx ewFZ/g//7E8Z3q/XolFbGcVETZleppP0kajcQmYH7tymLIyhINgH3kF3CccSMOwF8Q0+ iJKg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530O9j0GBu5/o4YfuNjWNRrRrDkXrx/2+wWzZZ+C/pZuwnXS/BJ8 Z3wKc3nf9HJNW76UvBSWQU3GHNgFzsSQ5WkHLWHn+3LfM5w=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxjrryBAOMYc3Y3NbQojBNSrjgNW6YT4vcoGOs06PvIWkVebEOowICE7qzSlEUHuP/DHMfuNgq7swnTCEt7Npk=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:3f8e:b0:474:bb8:4434 with SMTP id x14-20020a0565123f8e00b004740bb84434mr43779454lfa.310.1654008260288; Tue, 31 May 2022 07:44:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <6e5c6fa9-539f-80c3-7c92-5b97ad67560c@pi.nu>
In-Reply-To: <6e5c6fa9-539f-80c3-7c92-5b97ad67560c@pi.nu>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2022 07:44:08 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmXc6UQh9yGzVo2Fskvfz7XdroKiA8RKR3x7USS3pmxSHg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "mpls-chairs@ietf.org" <mpls-chairs@ietf.org>, "pals-chairs@ietf.org" <pals-chairs@ietf.org>, DetNet Chairs <detnet-chairs@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000cf66a805e04fce10"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/57KXZYG7F4hSIQioJI45hMjB4rM>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Poll 2: New SPL vs re-purposed ELI for carrying Network Action Indicators
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34
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: Tue, 31 May 2022 14:44:23 -0000

Dear Loa, MPLS WG Chairs, Open DT, et al.,
I believe that re-using ELI to address the requirements listed in
draft-ietf-mpls-miad-mna-requirements will definitely break implementations
of RFC 6790 and RFC 8662. Thus I oppose re-using ELI to indicate the
presence of an MNA in a packet. I think that the specifics of the mechanism
indicating the presence of an MNA should be discussed separately from the
framework document.

Regards,
Greg

On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 2:21 PM Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> wrote:

> MPLS Working Group, MPLS Open DT,
>
> The MPLS Network Actions (MNA) framework requires a method of indicating
> the presence of a Network Action and any Ancillary Data.
>
> Is the consensus of the working group that we do this by:
>
>    (1) allocating a new SPL for Network Action Indicators?
>
>    (2) re-purposing the ELI SPL?
>
>    (3) using some other method of indicating this such as making it an
>        additional property of an ordinary label?
>
> Please respond to the MPLS WG mail list.
>
> Loa Andersson
> for the Open DT wg chairs
>
> --
> Loa Andersson                        email: loa@pi.nu
> Senior MPLS Expert                          loa.pi.nu@gmail.com
> Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: +46 739 81 21 64
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email