[mpls] Comments about draft-xiong-mpls-path-segment-sr-mpls-interworking and difference between Path Segment and BSID

<xiong.quan@zte.com.cn> Thu, 12 September 2019 07:05 UTC

Return-Path: <xiong.quan@zte.com.cn>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 032BC12080F; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 00:05:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.198
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1a46u_euyyjH; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 00:05:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3AA4012007A; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 00:05:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mse-fl1.zte.com.cn (unknown []) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id 60D682D8C1AADBFE3639; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 15:05:52 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njxapp02.zte.com.cn ([]) by mse-fl1.zte.com.cn with SMTP id x8C753XL034802; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 15:05:03 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from xiong.quan@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njxapp05[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid201; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 15:05:03 +0800 (CST)
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2019 15:05:03 +0800 (CST)
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afd5d79ee1fcf6d9560
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <201909121505032731162@zte.com.cn>
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: <xiong.quan@zte.com.cn>
To: <loa@pi.nu>, <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>, <tsaad.net@gmail.com>
Cc: <mpls@ietf.org>, <draft-xiong-mpls-path-segment-sr-mpls-interworking@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl1.zte.com.cn x8C753XL034802
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/9MzfD6rWAu-8339Zcr6TnvyPDIM>
Subject: [mpls] =?utf-8?q?Comments_about_draft-xiong-mpls-path-segment-sr?= =?utf-8?q?-mpls-interworking_and_difference_between_Path_Segment_and_BSID?=
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 12 Sep 2019 07:05:59 -0000

Hi  all,

I noticed you proposed comments at the IETF#105 MPLS meeting to the draft "draft-xiong-mpls-path-segment-sr-mpls-interworking". Your comment and review is very appreciated!

The Path Segment defined in draft-ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment has been proposed and adopted in Spring WG.

The Path Segment is a path identification for Performance measurement and Bidirectional path correlation and End-to-end Path Protection.

The draft "draft-xiong-mpls-path-segment-sr-mpls-interworking" mainly focus on the SR and MPLS Interworking with Path Segment to provide

end-to-end bidirectional VPN service in inter-domain scenario. 

I noticed the Binding SID is also used in inter-domain scenario. I think the main difference is as follows:

Binding SID indicates a SID List. Selected path by replace the Binding SID to a SID List. Path Segment indicates a path, it can realize OAM,PM,protection. Selected path by path segment correlation.

Binding SID can not replace path segment in bidirectional path, OAM, PM and protection etc. If we use Binding SID, the per-segment or per-domain OAM/PM/protection can not be achieved.

I just start the discussion and comments and suggestions are very welcome!

Best Regards,