Re: [mpls] [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology-03.txt> (Special Purpose Label terminology) to Informational RFC
Loa Andersson <loa.pi.nu@gmail.com> Sun, 30 August 2020 08:32 UTC
Return-Path: <loa.pi.nu@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 100143A152A; Sun, 30 Aug 2020 01:32:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sGaebRQrjx8y; Sun, 30 Aug 2020 01:32:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pl1-x62d.google.com (mail-pl1-x62d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B5973A11D1; Sun, 30 Aug 2020 01:32:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pl1-x62d.google.com with SMTP id a8so1623671plm.2; Sun, 30 Aug 2020 01:32:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to :date:cc:message-id:references:to; bh=NDEFUdypH0Hp+2QDQ80hXq7+ALCukOaP+hzqwhe9pSs=; b=hkS+OmH/wScJV8MUkKU40NKpMZDc2rO++PGzSKbfT+EoXd247y9EWemXI5ERmOTcBc nHjZB7en0H0Y6DU7Q26mFxDuZepQvwiXMIlpUpcswl0kljlH3/4ucCHfwNM1pFVvI0lI Jp8MS1YBHW1RzIvmiXbO54t1xoka3KGSDPf+oA0lyGePIZPuIk6VQMlBrQkhPEZ6CSa+ A/wiYzRDdMQLAquromfEejFCtYsOn2fbiRZ9WhGk3JnU2TtkKbdmj6sqoVlT5BpRyFTF 9cD0GMT4RGbC5M+AD6uXKnYnng3wfYPeHPRBR6O5Q+v1vo4wqExadp+Bnu722HeaE8D0 914g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject :from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references:to; bh=NDEFUdypH0Hp+2QDQ80hXq7+ALCukOaP+hzqwhe9pSs=; b=rzLLRYEyIJAkVSHvqbmXfGHGTlq1pQgoSm+YKqrjSMD1ED6W6nxVU3RBhmxNnNytRO PsfZHkKNh040Jx++/iSZGzdApWqUISNnVt9bnz9UR7+SNz0C6AFeMlxzKTDOu3x1yLaZ gqz5cq3XPBTYTcgeDwyZ4oWWxkjqAuEEEwmhnF4P5m1Q/c1Hp0JnMCiBG6upYWWCUUkE WHuvJXZHfPtQehViv0pEvha7TgJ3Djqx4MIW/LYzELNoMdpU8ZkJIwWM+QAdMaGd+DUE Y2mzDus6xaySMiaklzKx9eFaPLL66sYJHGID33buVXN2CFKLShaItTXwe0pLxlr7ucWC R4Qg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533ofppOcVoeumW1yf5mnFGXM5ZWBsYvOFjN2n44BO5k+phYPbcU 31C6v3Ge4vmJ7j5tvbZyN2kY5X/6Fubpcw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzQF+Wzu76vBBRA2UFqLgwn9eniKbDN+bu/jaHk7wUoWK4OplLKdzCA/nz6PJZJIP4f+mcz8g==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:b193:: with SMTP id s19mr5033770plr.72.1598776342197; Sun, 30 Aug 2020 01:32:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.16] ([122.2.108.29]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p184sm4696036pfb.47.2020.08.30.01.32.20 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 30 Aug 2020 01:32:21 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-F00061A4-73AA-4546-A8A3-42EEAD6C17DD"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Loa Andersson <loa.pi.nu@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <BYAPR05MB4565231E5D79DFD4D3C66D19B9530@BYAPR05MB4565.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2020 16:32:19 +0800
Cc: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, tom petch <daedulus@btconnect.com>, Last Call <last-call@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology@ietf.org>, mpls <mpls@ietf.org>, mpls-chairs <mpls-chairs@ietf.org>, "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <db3546@att.com>
Message-Id: <DDD856EA-1117-4AD1-8C2B-09BE084D7B34@gmail.com>
References: <BYAPR05MB4565231E5D79DFD4D3C66D19B9530@BYAPR05MB4565.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
To: Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (17G80)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/Jln6WzLTqlD5Ps3jkrZUGLU11kA>
Subject: Re: [mpls] [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology-03.txt> (Special Purpose Label terminology) to Informational RFC
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: Sun, 30 Aug 2020 08:32:25 -0000
Kireeti, Sent from my iPhone > On 29 Aug 2020, at 23:38, Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net> wrote: > > > I’m in favor of updating this draft: > making it PS; > clarifying terminology and ranges; > adding Stewart’s text on legacy processing of label 7; > renaming the draft (at least remove “Terminology”); > sending it back to the WG. Yes, I agree to the content of this list, but I think #5 comes first, then the working group decide what to do (I don’t expect any surprises). Deborah, I guess this is on your table. /Loa > I don’t think we need three new drafts to deal with this, but we do need to deal with the issues raised. > > Cheers, > Kireeti > From: Loa Andersson <loa.pi.nu@gmail.com> > Sent: Friday, August 28, 2020 11:57:55 PM > To: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> > Cc: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>; tom petch <daedulus@btconnect.com>; Last Call <last-call@ietf.org>; draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology@ietf.org <draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology@ietf.org>; mpls <mpls@ietf.org>; mpls-chairs <mpls-chairs@ietf.org>; BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A <db3546@att.com> > Subject: Re: [mpls] [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology-03.txt> (Special Purpose Label terminology) to Informational RFC > > [External Email. Be cautious of content] > > > Stewart, > > Inline please > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On 28 Aug 2020, at 16:26, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > First a procedurally point: > > > > "This draft updates RFC7274" > > > > RFC7274 is standards track, and so believe that this terminology draft also needs to be standards track. > > > > Second technical matter: > > I think this is correct, it also motivates making this a Standards Track document and sending it back to the wg. The wg never discussed this and we need wg consensus call. > > > > In discussing this terminology draft there has been some confusion regarding the whether the construct XL/ELI/EL (or <15><7><xxx> as I have described it elsewhere in the thread) is permitted. > > Re-reading RFC7274 there is text that seems to expressly forbids the construct XL/ELI/EL (or <15><7><xxx>). > > > > The text > > > > "Values 0-15 of the "Extended Special-Purpose MPLS Label Values" > > registry are set aside as reserved. " > > > > Is quite clear that the whole of that range is reserved. > > > > In the IANA section it says: > > > > +---------------------+---------------------------------------------+ > > | Range | Allocation Policy | > > +---------------------+---------------------------------------------+ > > | 0 - 15 | Reserved. Never to be made available for | > > | | allocation. | > > > > That text seem to imply never to be deliberately used. > > > > The confusion arrises because of the text in RFC7274 that notes that legacy implementations might not notice that the construct XL/ELI/EL is present. It is perfectly reasonable to provide the exception for the legacy hardware, however the the text that does seems confusing. I would like to propose that we address this confusion by including a further update to RFC7274 in this terminology draft: > > > > OLD > > Values 0-15 of the "Extended Special-Purpose MPLS Label Values" > > registry are set aside as reserved. Furthermore, values 0-6 and 8-15 > > MUST NOT appear in the data plane following an XL; an LSR processing > > a packet with an XL at the top of the label stack followed by a label > > with value 0-6 or 8-15 MUST drop the packet. > > > > Label 7 (when received) retains its meaning as Entropy Label > > Indicator (ELI) whether a regular special-purpose label or an ESPL; > > this is because of backwards compatibility with existing implemented > > and deployed code and hardware that looks for the ELI without > > verifying if the previous label is XL or not. However, when an LSR > > inserts an entropy label, it MUST insert the ELI as a regular > > special-purpose label, not as an ESPL. > > NEW > > Values 0-15 of the "Extended Special-Purpose MPLS Label Values" > > registry are set aside as reserved. Furthermore, an implementation > > MUST NOT place a label with value 0-15 in the label stack immediately following > > an XL; an LSR processing a packet with an XL at the top of the label > > stack immediately followed by a label with value 0-15 MUST drop the packet. > > > > When inspecting a label stack to find an Entropy Label Indicator > > (ELI - label 7) a pre-existing implementation may fail to inspect the > > previous label, and so not notice that it is an XL. Such systems can > > continue to process the entropy information and forward the packet when the previous > > label is an XP without causing harm. However, the > > packet will be dropped when the XL reaches the top of the stack at another LSR. > > END > > > > This text clearly demonstrates that legacy LSRs are not expected to police the <15><7><xxx> construct and that nothing bad will happen of they do not > > Juniper Business Use Only
- [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminolog… The IESG
- Re: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-spl-termin… tom petch
- Re: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-spl-termin… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-spl-termin… tom petch
- Re: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-spl-termin… Kireeti Kompella
- Re: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-spl-termin… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [mpls] [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpl… Loa Andersson
- Re: [mpls] [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpl… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [mpls] [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpl… Loa Andersson
- Re: [mpls] [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpl… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [mpls] [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpl… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [mpls] [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpl… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [mpls] [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpl… Loa Andersson
- Re: [mpls] [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpl… Loa Andersson
- Re: [mpls] [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpl… Kireeti Kompella
- Re: [mpls] [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpl… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [mpls] [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpl… Jeff Tantsura
- Re: [mpls] [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpl… Loa Andersson
- Re: [mpls] [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpl… Stewart Bryant