Re: [mpls] A first version of draft-ijln-mpls-rfc5036bis-00.txt

Sasha,

At the time of that particular survey, yes. There was certainly enough
usage at the time to justify a MIB (RFC 4368). But I agree proof may be
problematic.

Cheers,
Andy

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Alexander Vainshtein <
Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com> wrote:

> Andy,
>
> Lots of thanks for a prompt response.
>
>
>
> I fully agree with you that proof of independent implementations is easy
> to provide.
>
> Actually since RFC 6410 only requires 2 independent implementation, this
> proof is already here.
>
>
>
> Proof of wide deployment is much more problematic. E.g., RFC 5037
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc5037/?include_text=1> (Experience
> with the LDP protocol) does not mention the interface type (packet, ATM or
> FR) that have been deployed  at the time of survey. I could guess that
> since 10 out of 11 responders to the corresponding survey have reported
> using liberal label retention mode, at best the remaining one was using
> label-controlled ATM. Does this make sense to you?
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Sasha
>
>
>
> Office: +972-39266302
>
> Cell:      +972-549266302
>
> Email:   Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com
>
>
>
> *From:* Andrew G. Malis [mailto:agmalis@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 16, 2016 5:52 PM
> *To:* Alexander Vainshtein
> *Cc:* mpls@ietf.org; draft-ijln-mpls-rfc5036bis@ietf.org;
> mpls-chairs@ietf.org; Loa Andersson
>
> *Subject:* Re: [mpls] A first version of draft-ijln-mpls-rfc5036bis-00.txt
>
>
>
> Sasha,
>
>
>
> You probably make a good case regarding label-controlled FR. For
> label-controlled ATM, there were certainly widely used implementations at
> one point in time. I guess the argument could be made that those
> implementations conform to 5036, not the new RFC if it’s removed.
>
>
>
> Proof of implementation is easy to find, even now, such as at
> http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/multiprotocol-label-switching-mpls/multiprotocol-label-switching-over-atm-mpls-over-atm/10475-mpls-vcmerge.html
> and
> https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos13.2/topics/usage-guidelines/interfaces-configuring-layer-2-circuit-transport-mode.html
> .
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Andy
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Alexander Vainshtein <
> Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com> wrote:
>
> Andy, and all,
>
> I have looked up RFC 6410 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6410>, and it
> states that in order to progress to full Standard “*at least two
> independent interoperating implementations with widespread deployment and
> successful operational experience*” are required.
>
>
>
> To me this means that if we want to retain the label-controlled ATM and/or
> FR in the Internet Standard version of LDP, we should be able to “show
> case” of widespread deployment and successful operational experience
> independently for each of these.
>
>
>
> Can we really do that? I am not sure about ATM, but I have strong doubts
> widespread deployment of label-controlled FR can be demonstrated even with
> the most liberal interpretation of the term “widespread”.
>
>
>
> It seems that the authors of draft-ijln have chosen an alternative
> possibility mentioned in 6410, namely removal of “unused features that
> cause great complexity” from the specification.
>
>
>
>
>
> If anything, this approach definitely saves some workJ.
>
>
>
> My 2c,
>
> Sasha
>
>
>
> Office: +972-39266302
>
> Cell:      +972-549266302
>
> Email:   Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com
>
>
>
> *From:* mpls [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Andrew G. Malis
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 16, 2016 4:24 PM
> *To:* Loa Andersson
> *Cc:* mpls@ietf.org; draft-ijln-mpls-rfc5036bis@ietf.org;
> mpls-chairs@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [mpls] A first version of draft-ijln-mpls-rfc5036bis-00.txt
>
>
>
> Loa,
>
>
>
> Questions about ATM and FR come up periodically. There are definitely
> still native ATM switches running in SP networks and perhaps native FR
> switches as well, and there’s no way to guarantee that none of them aren’t
> still running LDP to provide MPLS and IP services. It’s difficult to prove
> a negative. So my preference would be to retain those sections.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Andy
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 7:12 AM, Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> wrote:
>
> Working Group,
>
> We have started the work to take LDP to Internet Standard, the -00
> version of draft-ijln-mpls-rfc5036bis does a few things
>
> - gives us an xml-document to work from
> - defines the scope of what needs to be done
> - adds a TODO-list with semi-concrete task that should be
>   undertaken
> - starts a list of differences between RFC 5036 and the current
>   document
>
> We have added an "Editors note" as the first section (for scope
> and ToDo), the Editors Note will be removed before publication, but
> temporarily the section numbering is "one off" as compared to RFC 5036.
>
> WE have also added xml anchors/targets for internal references and
> figure numbers for the figures.
>
> We are considering to remove the figure number again before publication,
> but ant them there as long as we are discussing the document.
>
> The implicit tables for optional parameters has been changed to
> xml supported texttables.
>
> We have removed the reference to CR-LDP as the TE protocol.
>
> We have discussed if we can remove FR and ATM, since there seems to
> be no FR or ATM switches using LDP.
>
> Please comment on what we have done, and help us capture things we
> have forgotten.
>
> /Loa
> for the editors group
>
>
> On 2016-02-16 14:52, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote:
>
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
>
>
>          Title           : LDP Specification
>          Authors         : Xia Chen
>                            Loa Andersson
>                            Nic Leymann
>                            Ina Minei
>         Filename        : draft-ijln-mpls-rfc5036bis-00.txt
>         Pages           : 141
>         Date            : 2016-02-15
>
> Abstract:
>     The architecture for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) is
>     described in RFC 3031.  A fundamental concept in MPLS is that two
>     Label Switching Routers (LSRs) must agree on the meaning of the
>     labels used to forward traffic between and through them.  This common
>     understanding is achieved by using a set of procedures, called a
>     label distribution protocol, by which one LSR informs another of
>     label bindings it has made.  This document defines a set of such
>     procedures called LDP (for Label Distribution Protocol) by which LSRs
>     distribute labels to support MPLS forwarding along normally routed
>     paths.
>
>
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ijln-mpls-rfc5036bis/
>
> There's also a htmlized version available at:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ijln-mpls-rfc5036bis-00
>
>
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>
> _______________________________________________
> I-D-Announce mailing list
> I-D-Announce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>
>
>
>
>