[mpls] Re: Working Group Adoption Poll for draft-li-mpls-mna-nrp-selector

[Tony Li <[e-mail]>]

[WG chair hat: off]


Hi Zafar,



> 1a. Why there are multiple encoding for NRP ID needed - It should be simply limited to one encoding (this is to be implemented in HW and encoding simplicity is a key).
> 13-bit NRP Selector (NRPS13) Action
> 20-bit NRP Selector (NRPS20) Action
> 20-bit Entropy and NRP Selector (ENRPS20) Action
> 1b. Why 13-bit NRP ID is not sufficient?


Scale.  Amidst the 5g hype, there have been various claims about the ‘millions’ of NRP selectors that will be required.  A 20 bit selector gives the operator more room for scale.

As noted elsewhere, this can be pruned after adoption.


> 2a. This is an “application” draft that focuses only on the ISD option. I have “serious” concerns about encoding “segregation/ differences” in encoding application data in ISD vs. PSD. As an implementor, I would like to see encoding synergy between the two options. In this case, there is another draft that defines NRP encoding for the PSD option (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-mpls-enhanced-vpn-vtn-id/) I would like to see the two documents merged and processed together for NRP (and for NMA applications in general).


You’re free to advocate for a PSD option as well.  There’s no reason to defer proceeding, things are decoupled.


> 3. The draft should list other options for encoding NRP data with comparison/ guidance for implementor and operators (In particular, MPLS label in TEAS draft, PSD/ ISD, and how these options they can work or cannot work together, etc.).


This is a spec for one mechanism.

T