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

"Weiqiang Cheng" <chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com> Sat, 16 February 2019 00:40 UTC

Return-Path: <chengweiqiang@chinamobile.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 1B4E71289FA; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 16:40:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.28
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.28 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_RP_RNBL=1.31, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 oj-0DYJIwxuT; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 16:40:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cmccmta2.chinamobile.com (cmccmta2.chinamobile.com [221.176.66.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CE5E127287; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 16:40:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from spf.mail.chinamobile.com (unknown[172.16.121.5]) by rmmx-syy-dmz-app05-12005 (RichMail) with SMTP id 2ee55c675c136a9-855ce; Sat, 16 Feb 2019 08:40:51 +0800 (CST)
X-RM-TRANSID: 2ee55c675c136a9-855ce
X-RM-TagInfo: emlType=0
X-RM-SPAM-FLAG: 00000000
Received: from cmcc (unknown[111.32.143.115]) by rmsmtp-syy-appsvr03-12003 (RichMail) with SMTP id 2ee35c675c115e8-a64b5; Sat, 16 Feb 2019 08:40:51 +0800 (CST)
X-RM-TRANSID: 2ee35c675c115e8-a64b5
From: "Weiqiang Cheng" <chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com>
To: "'Greg Mirsky'" <gregimirsky@gmail.com>, "'Alexander Vainshtein'" <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>
Cc: <spring@ietf.org>, "'Stewart Bryant'" <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, <draft-cheng-spring-mpls-path-segment@ietf.org>, <mpls@ietf.org>, "'Loa Andersson'" <loa@pi.nu>
References: <0980ce7c-047c-519f-e7d5-98d32b498482@pi.nu> <9419b7d7-87ef-151f-5ed8-b0f78c6e83af@gmail.com> <AM6PR03MB3830EBBF1D04E91C35E7B8C99D670@AM6PR03MB3830.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CA+RyBmVObxJqsYvntWBR3RWq3=fTs72y-4Zb3mM2aHnmLZZx1A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+RyBmVObxJqsYvntWBR3RWq3=fTs72y-4Zb3mM2aHnmLZZx1A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2019 08:40:49 +0800
Message-ID: <050301d4c590$445f5d50$cd1e17f0$@com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0504_01D4C5D3.52829D50"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AdTEnLWGUqstE6FFTsuVHdcBGm8kCgA8RPPw
Content-Language: zh-cn
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/QVi6GlozdVWccNZe_uQ8AwS8Eqk>
Subject: [mpls] =?utf-8?b?562U5aSNOiBbc3ByaW5nXSB0byBwcm9ncmVzcyBkcmFm?= =?utf-8?q?t-cheng-spring-mpls-path-segment?=
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: Sat, 16 Feb 2019 00:40:58 -0000

Hi Greg,

Thanks a lot for your comments.

My comments are in-line.

 

B.R.

Weiqiang Cheng

 

发件人: Greg Mirsky [mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com] 
发送时间: 2019年2月15日 3:37
收件人: Alexander Vainshtein
抄送: spring@ietf.org; Stewart Bryant; draft-cheng-spring-mpls-path-segment@ietf.org; mpls@ietf.org; 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> 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: +972-39266302

Cell:      +972-549266302

Email:   Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com

 

-----Original Message-----
From: spring <spring-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Stewart Bryant
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2019 12:48 PM
To: Loa Andersson <loa@pi..nu <mailto:loa@pi.nu> >; spring@ietf.org; draft-cheng-spring-mpls-path-segment@ietf.org
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

 <mailto:spring@ietf.org> spring@ietf.org

 <https://www..ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring> 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
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring