[mpls] draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-shared-labels-00

Alexander Okonnikov <alexander.okonnikov@gmail.com> Wed, 27 December 2017 18:29 UTC

Return-Path: <alexander.okonnikov@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 C4A8A1242F7; Wed, 27 Dec 2017 10:29:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 rVXwNjx2YG2Z; Wed, 27 Dec 2017 10:29:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf0-x230.google.com (mail-lf0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::230]) (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 003FC127201; Wed, 27 Dec 2017 10:29:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf0-x230.google.com with SMTP id u84so23163253lff.7; Wed, 27 Dec 2017 10:29:48 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject:message-id:date :cc:to; bh=TE6yOkcsWS+I2ZQNVG2c5+RcMvjZaNH1K1GEKvphyTc=; b=Kqgkp+kpMqZEvcLs8Ewd+4U8y5+19fhQ6mklZMSyld1UQAV2cyFdldQr0qEGhntODg AjhajQOXaPMgtgxg5mmmf6DTD6LD/S0xv7UQXwcUldNTiZ0RbcTUuAOqn0ZjMRrv0rqw qMnuMbjK3ycKNVLxEqVS/QXxWY/Z+xbvEz4v/EL+iVPO/EbIPA6ElwLjRUs+NSMnuxbI TWB2ihIiOI5yqP3vmbZpwUC8tCfBh7TYKFqh0L0dCisoShrm+J6Q9NCEs/pkT6KZUyAd +wYOT/ZEnGN9K3Uxvz/DOqJIaworQ6TGtn8zGhIUrrLyHOa8ireDz0ID2I0tDC1a0OqT 2WCg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version :subject:message-id:date:cc:to; bh=TE6yOkcsWS+I2ZQNVG2c5+RcMvjZaNH1K1GEKvphyTc=; b=e+Np1W6nV9x5Yf5nc/6B4LPotK0I6bJpIWSw6oZUYZMgh+7aPP0g+k2dJzLbw3Wd9x yk046/MLxMRrfb8jvkQJZE+OBlH3IjVEwLvPDVuWl61/609HGLf1G4dmCFvCF3wts65H HFeRUDLbMp9Og6tIjHfQuY4zIcJuwmp3l5IjZUeiMMKGGeFik6fxh9La0n1PANeI8R+3 QW6rW/aq7+wpBQKgUE+9/bDp1xWqSlV/7Q8pOdbkIuPHezVaqFZJ7b2L3154lMUmMeWG sO9XjWi8SxAGBYDwblzLk1aFyo/n0RSomctYj3sStBqYf1qIVMNIvNeLEqX1t89aCzjL 6G9w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mJ1pwH0RnxSl9YSKnvsqpPdFOkNgiBwRMgKAEwx+ncDg0tPxOEH hj0dhhgZEsxruk0pzSTSTEMrwCzt
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBotxyNqvurZFMY5uDMKzVFgsKegsZ7n0ps1ovwgq+/SFIaExRgvuPC46qfgJSD9geR39VzFe8Q==
X-Received: by 10.46.43.65 with SMTP id q62mr16326743lje.56.1514399387031; Wed, 27 Dec 2017 10:29:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.1.2] ([88.201.167.102]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h21sm6545449lja.56.2017.12.27.10.29.45 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 27 Dec 2017 10:29:45 -0800 (PST)
From: Alexander Okonnikov <alexander.okonnikov@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\))
Message-Id: <D069043D-A5A5-470A-88AF-F49D6ECE9A7A@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2017 21:29:44 +0300
Cc: mpls@ietf.org
To: draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-shared-labels@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/5buAwPEvQDBLEEqG1p6AECm5jxk>
Subject: [mpls] draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-shared-labels-00
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Wed, 27 Dec 2017 18:29:54 -0000

Hi authors,

The draft highlights benefits of proposed solution, but doesn't mention drawbacks. For example, in case of regular RSVP-TE LSP transit LSRs are able to perform conditioning of traffic of individual RSVP-TE LSP, thankfully to unique ingress labels of LSPs. I.e. for regular RSVP-TE LSPs incoming label is not only key for seeking ILM entry, but (optionally) is input for classifier as well.

Also, the draft points, as one of benefits, hitless re-routing nature. Regular RSVP-TE LSPs are also could be re-routed in hitless manner. RFC 3209 says that if two LSPs have the same ERO, common label can be assigned for them. So, this benefit is questionable.

Thanks.