[mpls] [MPLS]New Draft Notification for draft-xiong-mpls-path-segment-sr-mpls-interworking-00.txt
<xiong.quan@zte.com.cn> Thu, 04 July 2019 06:34 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 [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 336FB12019B for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 23:34:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.197
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.197 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 RVJO5lIaichA for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 23:34:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) (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 4B3221205CF for <mpls@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 23:34:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mse-fl2.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.14.239]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id DE315A0BC610531ED46C; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 14:34:45 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njxapp04.zte.com.cn ([10.41.132.203]) by mse-fl2.zte.com.cn with SMTP id x646Xi9J092250; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 14:33:44 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from xiong.quan@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njxapp04[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid201; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 14:33:43 +0800 (CST)
Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2019 14:33:43 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afc5d1d9dc7fec692db
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <201907041433438991102@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <e622af91-531e-9500-fda5-cc865ca2c384@pi.nu>
References: 201904101547214513821@zte.com.cn, e622af91-531e-9500-fda5-cc865ca2c384@pi.nu
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: xiong.quan@zte.com.cn
To: loa@pi.nu
Cc: gregory.mirsky@ztetx.com, mpls@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl2.zte.com.cn x646Xi9J092250
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/Bun3G_50WrhuzWamlDPJoBxTHPs>
Subject: [mpls] [MPLS]New Draft Notification for draft-xiong-mpls-path-segment-sr-mpls-interworking-00.txt
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, 04 Jul 2019 06:34:51 -0000
Hi Loa, Thanks for your attention for the original draft! It is very important and much appreciated. I agree with you about the MPLS-TP. So to avoid the argument with MPLS-TP, I rewrite a new draft and proposed the use of Path Segment in interworking between SR and MPLS networks and provided end-to-end bidirectional tunnel across SR and MPLS domains. The link is as follows, comments are very welcome! https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-xiong-mpls-path-segment-sr-mpls-interworking/ Thanks, Quan 原始邮件 发件人:LoaAndersson <loa@pi.nu> 收件人:熊泉00091065; 抄送人:pce@ietf.org <pce@ietf.org>;draft-xiong-pce-pcep-extension-sr-tp@ietf.org <draft-xiong-pce-pcep-extension-sr-tp@ietf.org>;Gregory10211915;mpls@ietf.org <mpls@ietf.org>;spring@ietf.org <spring@ietf.org>; 日 期 :2019年04月10日 18:26 主 题 :Re: 答复: SR-MPLS-TP: Question on draft-xiong-pce-pcep-extension-sr-tp Quan, I think you are right that this discussion will be of interest for the SPRING and MPLS working group. I have copied the working group mailing lists. On 2019-04-10 09:47, xiong.quan@zte.com.cn wrote: > > Hi Loa, > > > Thanks for your review and inspired comment! It is very important and > much appreciated. > > > Refer to your question, we proposed the terminology of the "SR-MPLS-TP" > in the following use case draft. > > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hu-mpls-sr-inter-domain-use-cases/>https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hu-mpls-sr-inter-domain-use-cases/ > > > > We plan to work on the definition and scope of SR-MPLS-TP and start > discussion in MPLS and SPRING working group next week. > > Welcome to review and discuss about that draft and provide suggestions > for SR-MPLS-TP! > > > Best Regards, > > Quan > > > > 原始邮件 > *发件人:*LoaAndersson <loa@pi.nu> > *收件人:*pce@ietf.org > <pce@ietf.org>;draft-xiong-pce-pcep-extension-sr-tp@ietf.org > <draft-xiong-pce-pcep-extension-sr-tp@ietf.org>; > *日 期 :*2019年04月10日 03:55 > *主 题 :**SR-MPLS-TP: Question on draft-xiong-pce-pcep-extension-sr-tp* > Authors, Working Group, > > MPLS-TP is defined as a network that: > > "It MUST be possible to operate and configure the MPLS-TP data > plane without any IP forwarding capability in the MPLS-TP data > plane. (RFC 5654, section 2.3, requirement 36.)" > > ... > > "It MUST be possible to provide protection for the MPLS-TP data > plane without any IP forwarding capability in the MPLS-TP data > plane. (RFC 5654, section 2.5.1.1, requirement 63.)" > > In fact most MPLS-TP networks are deployed without IP in the data > plane. > > SR-MPLS on the other hand is a technology that is defined to USE > IGPs to distribute MPLS-labels, and thus requires IP in the data > plane. > > PCEP also runs over TCP/IP. > > The draft does not discuss this. I think this is needed, do you > have plans to do so? > > /Loa > -- > > > Loa Andersson email: loa@pi.nu > Senior MPLS Expert > Bronze Dragon Consulting phone: +46 739 81 21 64 > > -- Loa Andersson email: loa@pi.nu Senior MPLS Expert Bronze Dragon Consulting phone: +46 739 81 21 64
- Re: [mpls] 答复: SR-MPLS-TP: Question on draft-xion… Loa Andersson
- [mpls] [MPLS]New Draft Notification for draft-xio… xiong.quan