Re: [mpls] Concerns about ISD

Hi John,

It is much simpler ;)

The real question is: Do you see a need to use network actions in LDP based
networks. If so - and if this is valid YES - then sure MNA can be pushed
via "IETF machine".

If however the answer is no - and we learn from past mistakes - then I do
not know. See my previous note.

Yours irrespectively,
Robert

On Fri, 6 May 2022 at 15:03, John E Drake <jdrake=
40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
>
> Comment inline below.
>
>
>
> Yours Irrespectively,
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
> Juniper Business Use Only
>
> *From:* Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 5, 2022 8:34 PM
> *To:* John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>
> *Cc:* John E Drake <jdrake=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>; Tony Li <
> tony.li@tony.li>; mpls <mpls@ietf.org>
> *Subject:* RE: [mpls] Concerns about ISD
>
>
>
> *[External Email. Be cautious of content]*
>
>
>
> Sure, obviously they are for different purposes.
>
> Can we combine multiple existing components for one goal?
>
> Say we have A and B, can we use A+B for something?
>
> Or we must create C to replace A+B?
>
>
>
> *[JD]  To recap this extended discussion:*
>
>
>
> *1)  A is binding SID, which is optional and which makes SR label stacks
> smaller but not necessarily small*
>
>
>
> *2)  B is NAS.*
>
>
>
> *3)  Even with A, SR label stacks may be large*
>
>
>
> *4)  Because of 3),  a transit node may not be able to find the bottom of
> stack*
>
>
>
> *5)  Because of 4), there need to be multiple copies of a NAS within a
> stack *
>
>
>
> *6)  A network action may have ancillary data and that ancillary data may
> be in-stack or post-stack*
>
>
>
> *7)  Because of 4), a network action related to forwarding which has
> ancillary data should specify that it is in-stack*
>
>
>
> Tianran
>
>
>
> *From:* John E Drake [mailto:jdrake@juniper.net <jdrake@juniper.net>]
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 5, 2022 9:02 PM
> *To:* Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com>
> *Cc:* John E Drake <jdrake=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>; Tony Li <
> tony.li@tony.li>; mpls <mpls@ietf.org>
> *Subject:* RE: [mpls] Concerns about ISD
>
>
>
> BSID and NAS are for completely different purposes.  The former is for
> stack compression and the latter is for network actions.
>
>
>
> Yours Irrespectively,
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
> Juniper Business Use Only
>
> *From:* Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 4, 2022 8:43 PM
> *To:* John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>
> *Cc:* John E Drake <jdrake=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>; Tony Li <
> tony.li@tony.li>; mpls <mpls@ietf.org>
> *Subject:* RE: [mpls] Concerns about ISD
>
>
>
> *[External Email. Be cautious of content]*
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> It does not make sense to me to create a new mechanism as ISD in
> operators’ network, while not using existing mature BSID.
>
> There is no sign the reinvented wheel could be better.
>
>
>
> Tianran
>
>
>
> *From:* John E Drake [mailto:jdrake@juniper.net <jdrake@juniper.net>]
> *Sent:* Saturday, April 30, 2022 12:05 AM
> *To:* Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com>
> *Cc:* John E Drake <jdrake=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>; Tony Li <
> tony.li@tony.li>; mpls <mpls@ietf.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [mpls] Concerns about ISD
>
>
>
> Comment inline
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
>
> On Apr 29, 2022, at 11:17 AM, Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com> wrote:
>
> 
>
> *[External Email. Be cautious of content]*
>
>
>
> Hi,
> Comments inline.
>
> Tianran
>
>
>
> >
> > Hi John,
> >
> >  If we want to reuse this for consistent design (easy for interop), how
> do you
> > want to encode it to ISD?
> >
> > [JD]  That's up to a given solution to propose, but probably two LSEs
> >
> > ZTR> It would be interesting to know your proposal.
>
> [JD]  As I said, the size of an NRP ID needs to be decided and any MNA
> solution needs propose how it is to be
> encoded
>
> ZTR> Ok, so any solution need to demonstrate how it works.
>
>
> >
> >
> > 2. If we really worry about the MSD of SR, why not use BSID as a direct
> way to
> > reduce the stack?
> >
> > [JD]  Because it can't be mandated
> >
> > ZTR> I am sorry, I do not understand why BSID is not applicable. What's
> the "
> > mandated " mean here?
>
> [JD]  MNA cannot require the use of BSIDs
>
>
> ZTR> Is this an agreed requirement? In the requirement draft? I still
> can’t understand. On one hand, you worry about low stack depth. On the
> other hand, you don’t want to use an easy way to solve this problem.
>
> [JD]  I don’t think it’s realistic to tell a network operator that they
> have to deploy BSID in order to deploy MNA.  Also, I don’t think it’s a
> good solution became a label stack of BSIDs may still be too large and the
> node advertising the BSID is going to expand the the label stack with the
> path SIDS so the nodes on the path will have to deal with a large label
> stack.
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Tianran
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>