[mpls] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mpls-sfl-framework-01.txt

Balaji venkat Venkataswami <balajivenkat299@gmail.com> Mon, 29 January 2018 14:50 UTC

Return-Path: <balajivenkat299@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 C67D212D94A for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Jan 2018 06:50:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=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 eg_mtwlh6w59 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Jan 2018 06:50:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm0-x234.google.com (mail-wm0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::234]) (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 B0E0E12D869 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Jan 2018 06:50:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm0-x234.google.com with SMTP id b21so34227891wme.4 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Jan 2018 06:50:33 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=O5wVpMS6fGihsqj8d8KwL2t8s++pMCKHCewDCi/Geo8=; b=NGcxlnpBS4s6SHmszLeZ1zfZ2Jnl0aeU1BPH2jb1ISympbT8wAHCI2gm45JYRgwW8H HmyGa40r6R1lLxjKEV/inMmGyzn8Yui/CubrN1ex/nVBr+BgpyNKMg9soK+Xq6xYTibM 2MywcpScO1yznjo1Rinfvos2mQjf+4RbFkZkAOBPsfLCwpeVkauu9Xnetshg/22ktzFH 2Udvdb0Spq91RHXzp30rkRxECupQCCobhjIy1WsG10HSAfrJcDP3V4m5OaCE4EQVarrD G1r9gGuNMYQmawjMbI/kc255dEOHDODckCgZCZ/1Ev12WH8JT7XbIaTFkKRG/WIqOkrQ Oeqw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=O5wVpMS6fGihsqj8d8KwL2t8s++pMCKHCewDCi/Geo8=; b=hqDBJNHHkDvNWHqKOVan7qDm2fMiw3n7iOWrCYkdZVRTtCj2No16oy7Bpj14JFNoJ8 QkmSQeG7wiHUU1fUKG4pbONDUgcMV6xPe71Y2JPaCjAx4TNM5ohTfvb35XLDcCQncA0+ VF07Z8HoKkhgJf8nPOP3lzJEGBuh0SsRsRMw2CLL/4WACsW17Nx8hldukFbHVIzHceA6 UNzOQpKTjDuHbpByrTO6mMdEYSjA0G0uBNc54DSaKrrDLnK7sHnw4O+KHNUNcqzDN8eQ 1J6NjduEMm29lkx/Zp7wuJXJgeqA6EKaxt3Ez+MbLVV5zVVRuKWZ7X236iGVEDVKpbsF Eq2Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytdCY7ptIaL1dSGz1c/1rKU7l9zmbA5ChaXw6REWwxyHVsjq5G6+ MkKkX9l19eHfhzhCg0OlTHVd2zUtpLeAEXUze2I=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x224vlJyC4aTQnSpLUb2q0Ec/mqwdo5lytCREij9ssHXlRO5WG7SxCMfavabcDBDZ3qb6CorlVvMkaUx8sT9cqt4=
X-Received: by 10.28.38.133 with SMTP id m127mr17057820wmm.40.1517237432173; Mon, 29 Jan 2018 06:50:32 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.28.167.77 with HTTP; Mon, 29 Jan 2018 06:50:31 -0800 (PST)
From: Balaji venkat Venkataswami <balajivenkat299@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 20:20:31 +0530
Message-ID: <CAHF4apONg86UYSK9qJN_-bkcw0TcdFXMjgad+gSoxwDmsFbOmA@mail.gmail.com>
To: stewart.bryant@gmail.com, mach.chen@huawei.com, mpls@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c03c3142f49380563eb5e74"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/8THQcd3fAedRU67cNxygHDdEQo0>
Subject: [mpls] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mpls-sfl-framework-01.txt
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: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 14:50:36 -0000

Hi Authors,

In the current version of the draft, this follows in section 5.




   The introduction to an SFL to an existing flow may cause that flow to
   take a different path through the network under conditions of Equal
   Cost Multipath (ECMP).  This is turn may invalidate the certain uses
   of the SFL such as performance measurement applications.  Where this
   is a problem there are two solutions worthy of consideration:

   1.  The operator can elect to always run with the SFL in place in the
       MPLS label stack.

   2.  The operator can elect to use [RFC6790] Entropy Labels in a
       network that fully supports this type of ECMP.  If this approach
       is adopted, the intervening MPLS network MUST NOT load balance on
       any packet field other than the entropy label.  Note that this is
       stricter than the text in Section 4.2 of [RFC6790].  In networks
Bryant, et al.           Expires August 2, 2018                 [Page
7]Internet-Draft                   MPLS FI                    January
2018

       in which the ECMP decision is independent of both the value of
       any other label in the label stack, and the MPLS payload, the
       path of the flow with the SFL will be congruent with the path
       without the SFL.


Question ?

You dont seem to be considering the consequences of point 1 in the
explanation given.
Or are you trying to say that if point 1 is what is followed, the ECMP
decision should be
independent of the SFL label in place and the MPLS payload, so that the
path of the
flow with the SFL in place will be congruent with the path without the SFL ?

Are you specifying something in point 2 that also applies to point 1 ?

Please clarify.

thanks and regards,
balaji venkat