IETF Logo Mail Archive

[mpls] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Fwd: Fwd: Re: Discussion points for upcoming MPLS WG interim

Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> Sat, 22 February 2025 09:36 UTC

Return-Path: <stewart.bryant@gmail.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 1DA04C1D3DD1 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 22 Feb 2025 01:36:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.109
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.109 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PIOrJ7LUBnbf for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 22 Feb 2025 01:36:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wr1-x436.google.com (mail-wr1-x436.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::436]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B4CA4C1CAF4E for <mpls@ietf.org>; Sat, 22 Feb 2025 01:36:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wr1-x436.google.com with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-38f6287649eso2222741f8f.3 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Sat, 22 Feb 2025 01:36:41 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1740217000; x=1740821800; darn=ietf.org; h=to:references:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:cc:date :in-reply-to:from:subject:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=izNIHiA28UnIx3tICWY/SpHD+OHNSUiXeCQpBc+d2K4=; b=EjMTMAY54O+t05PIe+tytePW+83nCP/xHcePjBn2YMrG5ZQKHGbG++IYFdnXcTAoBr XG7hPUaokRd7IMHP90TVmJfznjCjw9/Z0TRIgFhNz310nRiKA5U5W2UEexf3be4w0+Vq oaLVHHZpTLb1joDS++o1ABMh+yT6oeCvBzkPlUJ3fD1rHFtat6Au2mFeNf0bSxVSBWX7 FZLlzq7xaBzEPnJ84i1pvIjcTWIz19v6lQXIuUIqfqUOlsqEA7otq/KZsQgMust7hrau k5BGvczSoEDzzKLV3tSw86NeidhvbicooyuU4iiPZO1HLGuhWsAum2RhaPmCOap1oj+9 LEAA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1740217000; x=1740821800; h=to:references:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:cc:date :in-reply-to:from:subject:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=izNIHiA28UnIx3tICWY/SpHD+OHNSUiXeCQpBc+d2K4=; b=mD6TeCtnSkIXs6972kBgopYJ1dvbkDjWDZ5DvvRob1eqi6GpEdJ5y3ZDou2tLshTOs k05QgR0W2myiTUxeOy/2Cqi3iBMFZ/Dtoz/HShSvGtu+m+xokfPwmHGLO0+faU3dDndr 42mCoadKml7nKSJM+/i+nDAZs7q/mgNpTTWpwn95E2uVHrTp8gSC+YIRbNnLK7CXcx/I 2bh7Hn5TQNPHCg8I/xkVLsayEaPomtCs/8lNdromH9GmG0qtJC+/3JO2IEtr+uzMKAwp 9eKZmlSuHz6OuujP3OZR5UL/rk4EyUWHYaagzcaVtqtdtq7luCkVliczeY+jfQZl0dvL pjuA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxI1SFHpwN+ORD/hgNX/5DmTcLFlx9hxAXsPGMdquWqanGhtyjb JGJrFBdeAXXAJ7n1T4SscLsoacDJIYSZKomFxbmwrEiL90gHLU7orCMQQQ==
X-Gm-Gg: ASbGnct2YbAoprpAi8sWjVOfXQHeUq3uGgKJ2yCYm3EHTOfpM2AaypS/jqTVvTj7FrU O1u2g6/dRpEXQgC3YZv85lZaD1Vk+YLaJfztfgo80L1j4xZgj2wFUulHhJaC6fNcAqtmy1DetA+ OR/E7jneto6GTC+SwKku+BW9IN5ZRVZu7EyO2kYAgE0TuDFh0bGpIWkkdG9AsFYLJ69jpdMG63+ Avh20tBzpQ8pQPC/G7nqqzoOyfG0cpk8QxREiS2Da8tdB4PLVd1KDL2cMmB0PlotzDBC/7+ejzi d6MJOvQtWYFZCBaugcb00mbWR8a0H/FafKA14g6uoedtEro3
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEIDIxF381MhTwFW41yxi5tr7EfshaNhUJ1SXJtk7nJP7ozyPe2WWKuraDxqW9NWHAmqLUyHw==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:144d:b0:38f:32ac:7e69 with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-38f708264f9mr5170255f8f.41.1740216999616; Sat, 22 Feb 2025 01:36:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpclient.apple ([148.252.133.3]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ffacd0b85a97d-38f258b4423sm26151161f8f.11.2025.02.22.01.36.38 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 22 Feb 2025 01:36:39 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3826.400.131.1.6\))
From: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <46bd812a156c420c838f1c1151540759@huawei.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2025 09:36:25 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <83BAE618-8E39-41C5-8FA8-E45A56C1C906@gmail.com>
References: <67b83dc5.0c0a0220.288dc3.13e2SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <A4127697-D3DA-4D5A-A75A-625BA76B4D14@gmail.com> <6B4E7A96-7B96-4FF7-91A4-31C58361360B@tony.li> <b46f2dacf937484a8c79ca6c2c9997d7@huawei.com> <ACDF755E-AB0B-42A5-9A66-73B5A6D001BE@tony.li> <7f67091195164ed7b9d4a92cb2d73afe@huawei.com> <B34DF1C6-5CF1-437E-A8AD-EF651F1C6485@tony.li> <207d56b907c54fee85f5438b288f2f8d@huawei.com> <46bd812a156c420c838f1c1151540759@huawei.com>
To: mpls <mpls@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3826.400.131.1.6)
Message-ID-Hash: GEMUYF6257LAYBUGLWLCUUDU5YNEFB6Q
X-Message-ID-Hash: GEMUYF6257LAYBUGLWLCUUDU5YNEFB6Q
X-MailFrom: stewart.bryant@gmail.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-mpls.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [mpls] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Fwd: Fwd: Re: Discussion points for upcoming MPLS WG interim
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/GgwujxA-nvsx-SyNb9-i_Zdhsgo>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mpls>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:mpls-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:mpls-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:mpls-leave@ietf.org>

In the ISD header design the authors advise against variable data in bits 0..19 but appear to allow it for bits 20..22.

Please can vendors and operators confirm that they do not hash bits 20.22 (the EXP/TC bits) during ECMP decision making?

I have always assumed that label hashing was on the RFC 3032 field called label, but the world often uses the terms label and label stack entry interchangeably, and I can imagine that some might be tempted to include the additional entropy found in bits 20..22. Of course if ECN were in use strange things would happen, but I understand that it is very rarely used in practice and thus some might be tempted to take advantage of the additional entropy.

Best regards

Stewart

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status