Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT for draft-kompella-mpls-larp

Rakesh Gandhi <> Sun, 05 December 2021 17:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47A023A012C; Sun, 5 Dec 2021 09:14:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KlWqX-qOB_xY; Sun, 5 Dec 2021 09:14:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA44E3A012A; Sun, 5 Dec 2021 09:14:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id e11so16411904ljo.13; Sun, 05 Dec 2021 09:14:46 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=r5+/Ff3zhaHNlNwR0xHtKhMJesGiIyQeqQnE/E7KrjM=; b=BSDDnKu6hxqYbuhzhujwfOaHahYAUwzneX3BCe6uf5KjkmnOgvd2S9UQc9l9yQuj7w hVHBc/8SprMVbJ+Xm47B6TYlXSIfhNm3FcpJKZzjqrXQINQeAU8ayzNSgzkmeR6cUC16 JYmdmkU0v6pgkO9G1FIV4fjgHTx1O4rWePHVFHGFbLlZZavp/AmFiZZFDdILFIEjlpPN CFWCoAF++7c8J5l5Ynqg2wt9pq8qGcwGNnyNDYOnsJazjpn4Egatl7QHN8do1+qlUKCH 4MsP9vZTrO7WoWCDRmcYq2nGpwZYjBxXEzU8MWdM18XWFdmUIpksuWYwGBNvKW3o/KDD rGZQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=r5+/Ff3zhaHNlNwR0xHtKhMJesGiIyQeqQnE/E7KrjM=; b=Qw1VdWBiVbwcMOs9jCRX0MYReSm+ZpjKthuUSVS1TKNTav/4ZHc1E7mx5oAkXz2iI4 vCiSSuk6JEijn742gDa3Nagg4TRvcrysGxo1jm3V7BcquCMKX9xtod2RJzfHHPgDC7qi eqcbrKdrTV6ITj74i0gWnYVXa4JiSUQWEhGnTxyPcRNql8oquqDsHWWBmxjAhIAmsecq o9PyJa3Gp5ssCKuEDZD9dT8uc99LbdZqn6Tg5joX6zcpKC4JAGyD11B33jHGzZDooJom Rk/JMax+mh46MqtcBfpKApzcGfUguZC3yki1YQIMIQumAK/rtpxlm6JJp9ZWlyW46Std cy9A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531iuE1UYsptN0/AlFU28vF6u1J6DMENGPaU0Pnvte78Df/0Q9Hm hsv2OS0RfR5BR7ZpI5u6S5i4U+ZsAEreDoOahyBRdO+ZoWP8
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJycfIO1ZYJGczNBMcC3RqUSBxVDvq7NTgykrSMmeqzivYNIUjtZcZbi9ufqyqI6E43kZJfYP6VRtiAUa9gTvV8=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:a04:: with SMTP id k4mr31330497ljq.12.1638724480057; Sun, 05 Dec 2021 09:14:40 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Rakesh Gandhi <>
Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2021 12:14:29 -0500
Message-ID: <>
To: Xufeng Liu <>
Cc: Tarek Saad <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, mpls <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000084c2d505d269468c"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT for draft-kompella-mpls-larp
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2021 17:14:54 -0000

Hi Tarek, Authors,
As requested, I have done MPLS-RT review of draft-kompella-mpls-larp-10.

Yes, the document is coherent and technically sound. It is well written and
is ready to be considered for WG adoption.
Below are some non-blocking review comments to be considered:

 3 <>.
L-ARP Protocol Operation

Within the MPLS Fabric, the usual MPLS protocols (IGP,

   LDP, RSVP-TE) are run.

<RG> Does this include SR-MPLS as well?

3.2 <>.
Egress Operation

o  a node SID advertised on behalf of H3; or

<RG> The draft should expand the acronym for SID.

Is this for Segment Routing? The draft does not discuss SR applicability
elsewhere (e.g. Section 3).  Also there is no reference to any SR documents.

3.4 <>.
Data Plane

If T1's reachability to H3 is via a

   SPRING label stack, the label L1 acts as an implicit binding SID.

<RG> Same Comment for binding SID and SPRING as above.

Section 5.2

The CT TLV has Type (TBD)

Is this Type TBD to be allocated by IANA? If yes, Section 7 does not
mention it.

Also, should expand the acronym CT.

Section 7 IANA Section:

The document may add more information on the IANA registry type. I think it
is following:

Hardware Types



On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 11:19 AM Tarek Saad <> wrote:
>> Hi Xufeng/Yingzhen/Rakesh,
>> You have been selected as potential MPLS-RT reviewers for
>> draft-kompella-mpls-larp-10.
>> Note to authors: You have been CC'd on this email so that you can know
>> that this review is going on.
>> Reviews should comment on whether the document is coherent, is it useful
>> (ie, is it likely to be actually useful in operational networks), and is
>> the document technically sound?  We are interested in knowing whether the
>> document is ready to be considered for WG adoption (ie, it doesn't have to
>> be perfect at this point, but should be a good start).
>> Reviews should be sent to the document authors, WG co-chairs and WG
>> secretary, and CC'd to the MPLS WG email list. If necessary, comments may
>> be sent privately to only the WG chairs.
>> If you have technical comments you should try to be explicit about what
>> *really* need to be resolved before adopting it as a working group
>> document, and what can wait until the document is a working group document
>> and the working group has the revision control.
>> Can you review the document by November 26, 2021?
>> Regards,
>> Tarek (as MPLS WG chair)