Re: [mpls] working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label

[Sri <[e-mail]>]

Hi Bruno,

Thanks for the clarification. On my first read of your last sentence under
NEW it had seemed to me that it is placing a restriction on the ingress. On
reading your clarification I understand that it is not your intent. So I
accept the comment for the NEW definition but suggest that that we refer to
RFC6790 rather than re-stating that EL is used for load-balancing. So how
about this for sec 4 para2 (changes highlighted) -

   An LSR may have a limitation on the depth of the label stack that
it can read and process
    in order to do multipath load balancing as described in [RFC6790].
This limitation
   expressed in terms of the number of label stack entries that the LSR
   can read is defined as the Readable Label Depth (RLD)
   capability of that LSR.  If an EL does not occur within the RLD of an
   LSR in the label stack of the MPLS packet that it receives, then it
   would lead to poor load balancing at that LSR.  The RLD of an LSR is
   a characteristic of the forwarding plane of that LSR's implementation
   and determining it is outside the scope of this document.


I have not used your suggested sentence "...both the ELI and EL MUST be.."
since the ELI is placed above the EL and if the LSR can read the EL, it can
obviously have read the ELI.

Thanks
Sri

On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 7:09 AM, <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Sri,
>
>
>
> > The definition of RLD must not specify conditions on when an EL must be
> used. RLD is a per LSR characteristic. Any recommendations on placing the
> EL must be specified outside of the definition.
>
>
>
> IMO, the goal of RLD is specifically to say that the EL needs to be within
> the RLD in order for the EL to be used for load-balancing. Otherwise, can
> you clarify the goal of signaling this RLD?
>
>
>
> (That’s a different point compared to specifying the position of the EL in
> the stack, which is a freedom of the ingress. (although a secondary goal of
> this goal seems to be to reduce this freedom))
>
>
>
> -- Bruno
>
>
>
> *From:* Sri [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 04, 2016 3:56 PM
> *To:* DECRAENE Bruno IMT/OLN
> *Cc:* LITKOWSKI Stephane OBS/OINIS;
> [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [mpls] working group last call on
> draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label
>
>
>
> Hi Bruno,
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 6:45 AM, <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hi Stéphane,
>
>
>
> Thanks for the quote. I had read that sentence, and I think it could be
> made more precise.
>
> e.g.
>
> OLD: This limitation expressed in terms of the number of label stack
> entries that the LSR  can read is henceforth referred to as the Readable
> Label Depth (RLD)  capability of that LSR.
>
> NEW: This limitation expressed in terms of the number of label stack
> entries that the LSR  can read. This document defines the Readable Label
> Depth (RLD) as the number of labels that a transit LSR can read for
> load-balancing purpose.  When EL is used, both ELI and EL MUST be within
> the RLD, in order for the EL to be used during load-balancing.
>
>
> The definition of RLD must not specify conditions on when an EL must be
> used. RLD is a per LSR characteristic. Any recommendations on placing the
> EL must be specified outside of the definition.
>
>
>
>
>
> Sri
>
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.
>
>