Re: [mpls] MPLS label and LSE data models

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Tue, 06 June 2017 15:10 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.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 863E11294A3; Tue, 6 Jun 2017 08:10:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.522
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.522 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 MJ2GA8aTgCFy; Tue, 6 Jun 2017 08:10:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-3.cisco.com (alln-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.142.90]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A2C62129482; Tue, 6 Jun 2017 08:10:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=17257; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1496761828; x=1497971428; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=ujIH7dZDSta+n7bAX9jl4Qvh1mTHFIZdx5KEfy12kKU=; b=eZNWkqMu3x1zAcJNU/ApKJfxG1Al0N6zO4NtEhkvRD7Gjxed9VbgUxSh /9jVOYp/RUPAqKNs4sfgouvfXtw2nM58AabLCmeSq0ffuOiKexoaWUo0Y dmfJ7/KzjNedz1t5qThMHty+LJUzSbJgBd6tSzFNvvhU9c2mq0dW3T0Wv M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0DWAADOxDZZ/4QNJK1eGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBBwEBAQEBgm9pYoENB4NsihmSBIgqiByFOYIQJIYAAhqCST8YAQIBAQEBAQEBayiFGAEBAQEDI1YQAgEIEQMBAigDAgICHxEUCQgCBA4FiUZMAxWtGoImhz8NhDgBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAR6IQYMggliCMh6CVIJhBZcChnc7AockhzOEW5F/iz6JIgEfOIEKdBVGhwZ2iD+BDQEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.39,306,1493683200"; d="scan'208,217";a="435853822"
Received: from alln-core-10.cisco.com ([173.36.13.132]) by alln-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 06 Jun 2017 15:10:28 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-012.cisco.com (xch-rtp-012.cisco.com [64.101.220.152]) by alln-core-10.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v56FAQfV018098 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 6 Jun 2017 15:10:27 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-012.cisco.com (64.101.220.152) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Tue, 6 Jun 2017 11:10:26 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Tue, 6 Jun 2017 11:10:26 -0400
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
CC: "draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-mpls-static-yang@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mpls-static-yang@ietf.org>, "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: MPLS label and LSE data models
Thread-Index: AQHS3ksFPA4mDDKsXkmMIsSaphDK+qIW8fIAgABQZoCAAK8XgA==
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2017 15:10:26 +0000
Message-ID: <D55C3BE3.B2239%acee@cisco.com>
References: <CA+RyBmVH=KCi3T8u2dB_WaKBOLheYwT4q0d+tpYdT-Z2iTZ+og@mail.gmail.com> <D55B6659.B21B8%acee@cisco.com> <CA+RyBmVyHKGhxitGgQ6RRMmHKwvs=b_GkKMq80rE=Ys8WetGaQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+RyBmVyHKGhxitGgQ6RRMmHKwvs=b_GkKMq80rE=Ys8WetGaQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.196]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D55C3BE3B2239aceeciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/Bd2wEs1ackH36rfCaokwEgC8rMc>
Subject: Re: [mpls] MPLS label and LSE data models
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: Tue, 06 Jun 2017 15:10:32 -0000

Hi Greg,


From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com<mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>>
Date: Monday, June 5, 2017 at 8:43 PM
To: Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com<mailto:acee@cisco.com>>
Cc: "draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types@ietf.org>" <draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types@ietf.org>>, "draft-ietf-mpls-static-yang@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-mpls-static-yang@ietf.org>" <draft-ietf-mpls-static-yang@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-mpls-static-yang@ietf.org>>, Routing WG <rtgwg@ietf.org<mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>>, "mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org>" <mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: MPLS label and LSE data models

Hi Acee,
I think rather of the contrary, Static MPLS LSP must include TC and TTL. And Bottom-of-the-stack flag as well (I don't see it in grouping mpls-label-stack of the ietf-routing-types).

I just looked at a couple implementations and they do not include per-label provisioning of the traffic class and TTL. One would certainly NOT want to provision bottom of stack. Even if you put it in the rightmost label, other routes which are already labeled could resolve over the static LSP.

As far as adding a separate leaf list for the mpls-label type, I don’t think this is necessary as adding a type just to abstract a YANG list just adds complexity.

Anyway, I’m deferring to the authors of the MPLS static model if they desire any additional types in ietf-routing-types.

Thanks,
Acee


Regards,
Greg

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 4:55 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com<mailto:acee@cisco.com>> wrote:
Greg, et al,

From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com<mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>>
Date: Monday, June 5, 2017 at 6:28 PM
To: "draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types@ietf.org>" <draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types@ietf.org>>, "draft-ietf-mpls-static-yang@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-mpls-static-yang@ietf.org>" <draft-ietf-mpls-static-yang@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-mpls-static-yang@ietf.org>>
Cc: Routing WG <rtgwg@ietf.org<mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>>, "mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org>" <mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org>>
Subject: MPLS label and LSE data models
Resent-From: <alias-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:alias-bounces@ietf.org>>
Resent-To: Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.qu@huawei.com<mailto:yingzhen.qu@huawei.com>>, <xufeng_liu@jabil.com<mailto:xufeng_liu@jabil.com>>, Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com<mailto:acee@cisco.com>>, Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org<mailto:chopps@chopps.org>>, <lberger@labn.net<mailto:lberger@labn.net>>
Resent-Date: Monday, June 5, 2017 at 6:28 PM

Dear Authors, et.al<http://et.al>,
I've got a question, or several of them, about data models of MPLS label and MPLS label stack element (LSE). I ahve not followed the discussions and apologize if these already were considered, discussed.
In the Routing Types document I've found that only MPLS label being modeled but not the MPLS LSE. As result, models that use rt-types:mpls-label, e.g. YANG DAta Model for MPLS Static LSPs, defines outgoing labels not as array of LSEs but as array (leaf-list) of MPLS labels. In the latter document I don't see how TTL and Traffic Class (TC) are presented for each of labels in the array. Hence my questions:

  *   should there be data model of MPLS LSE in rt-types (it does have TTL and TC but separately);

  *   should data model of Static MPLS LSP use MPLS LSE model rather than model of only 20 bit-long label.

Where else so you see  a requirement for a label stack with entries that don’t contain TC and TTL? This seems specific to static provisioning of static LSPs rather than a general requirement for ietf-routing-types.

Thanks,
Acee


Appreciate you comments.

Regards,
Greg