Re: [mpls] [spring] to progress draft-cheng-spring-mpls-path-segment

[Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>]

Rakesh, authors,

I have not been thinking about this too much. But if you look at fig 2
of draft-cheng-spring-mpls-path-segment, and you need a GACh between
A and D, I'd say that the GAL will be at the bottom of stack.

What if you need the CACh for the sub-path B to C, where will the GAL
go?

/Loa



On 2019-02-23 09:25, Rakesh Gandhi wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> 
> I am not sure if the question has been answered. I would think GAL is at 
> the bottom of the label stack.
> 
> Thanks,
> Rakesh
> 
> 
> On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 4:24 PM Greg Mirsky <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>     Hi Weiqiang Cheng,
>     thank you for your expedient response to my questions. The document
>     states that one of the use cases for the Path segment is to be used
>     as a performance, packet loss and/or delay, measurement session
>     identifier. I think that RFC 6374 is the most suitable for PM OAM in
>     SR-MPLS environment. Of course, the type of the encapsulated message
>     can be identified using the destination UDP port number with IP/UDP
>     encapsulation. But another option is to use G-ACh encapsulation.
>     That would require the use of GAL. And that is how I've arrived at
>     my original question (I should have explained it better, my apologies):
> 
>         How the Path segment and GAL are placed relative to each other
>         in the SR-MPLS label stack?
> 
>     Regards,
>     Greg
> 
>     On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 4:40 PM Weiqiang Cheng
>     <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>         Hi Greg,____
> 
>         Thanks a lot for your comments.____
> 
>         My comments are in-line.____
> 
>         __ __
> 
>         B.R.____
> 
>         Weiqiang Cheng____
> 
>         __ __
> 
>         *发件人:*Greg Mirsky [mailto:[e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>]
>         *发送时间:*2019年2月15日3:37
>         *收件人:*Alexander Vainshtein
>         *抄送:*[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>; Stewart Bryant;
>         [e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>;
>         [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>; Loa Andersson
>         *主题:*Re: [spring] to progress
>         draft-cheng-spring-mpls-path-segment____
> 
>         __ __
> 
>         Dear All,____
> 
>         I concur with all what has been said in support of the adoption
>         of this draft by SPRING WG. The document is well-written,
>         addresses the real problem in SR-MPLS, and the proposed solution
>         is technically viable.____
> 
>         My comments and questions are entirely for further discussion:____
> 
>           * would the draft be expanded to demonstrate how "the Path
>             Segment may be used to identify an SR-MPLS Policy, its
>             Candidate-Path (CP) or a SID List (SL)"?____
> 
>         [Weiqiang] Yes, It is necessary and we will add some text to
>         demonstrate this in the future version. ____
> 
>           * as many use cases for the Path Segment are related to OAM
>             operations, it would be helpful to expand on the use of GAL
>             and the Path Segment.____
> 
>         [Weiqiang] It is always helpful to have more use cases. However,
>         The GAL is used today in MPLS-TP LSPs to flag the G-Ach and is
>         used for OAM packets only while the Path segment is used for
>         data packets for the each traffic flow. It is a little bit
>         different. ____
> 
>         Regards,____
> 
>         Greg____
> 
>         __ __
> 
>         On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 1:12 AM Alexander Vainshtein
>         <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele..com
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:____
> 
>             +1.____
> 
>             ____
> 
>             I have been following this draft from its -00 revision. The
>             current revision has resolved most of the issues I (and
>             others) have been raised (e.g., elimination of excessive
>             options).____
> 
>             ____
> 
>              From my POV, in its current state the draft meets two basic
>             requirements for the WG adoption:____
> 
>             1.It addresses a real and relevant problem, namely the MPLS
>             Flow Identification problem discussed in general in RFC 8372
>             <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8372> and scoped to SR-MPLS
>             LSPs in this draft. Specifics of SR-MPLS include the need to
>             provide end-to-end liveness check that is one of the
>             requirements explicitly specified in Section 2 of RFC 8355
>             <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8355>. ____
> 
>             2.It provides a reasonable (from my POV) approach to
>               solution of this problem.____
> 
>             ____
> 
>             I also concur with Stewart’s comment about strong similarity
>             between the approach taken in this draft for SR-MPLS and
>             generic work in progress on synonymous flow labels
>             <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-sfl-framework-04>
>             that has been already adopted as a MPLS WG item.  To me this
>             is yet another indication that the draft should be adopted.____
> 
>             ____
> 
>             My 2c,____
> 
>             Sasha____
> 
>             ____
> 
>             Office: [phone]____
> 
>             Cell:      [phone]____
> 
>             Email: [e-mail]
>             <mailto:[e-mail]>____
> 
>             ____
> 
>             -----Original Message-----
>             From: spring <[e-mail]
>             <mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Stewart Bryant
>             Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2019 12:48 PM
>             To: Loa Andersson <loa@pi..nu <mailto:[e-mail]>>;
>             [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>;
>             [e-mail]
>             <mailto:[e-mail]>
>             Subject: Re: [spring] to progress
>             draft-cheng-spring-mpls-path-segment____
> 
>             ____
> 
>             I have just read the draft and agree that it should be
>             adopted by the WG. It solves an important problem in
>             instrumenting and protecting an SR path.____
> 
>             ____
> 
>             It should be noted that we needed to do something very
>             similar in mainstream MPLS via the synonymous label work
>             which is already adopted. ____
> 
>             However SL did not address the SR case.. We therefore need
>             this path label work to be progressed.____
> 
>             ____
> 
>             - Stewart____
> 
>             ____
> 
>             On 10/02/2019 08:11, Loa Andersson wrote:____
> 
>             > Working Group,____
> 
>             > ____
> 
>             > I have reviewed draft-cheng-spring-mpls-path-segment and as far as I ____
> 
>             > can see, it is ready for wg adoption.____
> 
>             > ____
> 
>             > There were some comments in Bangkok, but due to the many collisions ____
> 
>             > between working groups at that meeting I couldn't attend the SPRING ____
> 
>             > f2f.____
> 
>             > ____
> 
>             > The minutes are not clear, but as far as I understand, there is ____
> 
>             > nothing that can't be resolved in the wg process.____
> 
>             > ____
> 
>             > /Loa____
> 
>             ____
> 
>             ___________________________________________________
> 
>             spring mailing list____
> 
>             [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>____
> 
>             https://www..ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring____
> 
> 
>             ___________________________________________________________________________
> 
>             This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and
>             contains information which is
>             CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If
>             you have received this
>             transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, phone or
>             fax, and then delete the original
>             and all copies thereof.
>             _______________________________________________________________________________
> 
>             _______________________________________________
>             spring mailing list
>             [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>             https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring____
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     spring mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
> 

-- 


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