[mpls] [MPLS]New Draft Notification for draft-xiong-mpls-path-segment-sr-mpls-interworking-00.txt

[<[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]>
收件人：熊泉00091065;
抄送人：[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;Gregory10211915;[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;
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, [e-mail] 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 <[e-mail]>
> *收件人：*[e-mail] 
> <[e-mail]>;[e-mail] 
> <[e-mail]>;
> *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: [e-mail]
> Senior MPLS Expert
> Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: [phone]
> 
> 

-- 


Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
Senior MPLS Expert
Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: [phone]