Re: [mpls] What percentage will carry indicator/ancillary data in the future

[Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>]

Kireeti,



On 11/10/2021 20:22, Kireeti Kompella wrote:
> Here’s what I’m thinking for the next iteration of the draft.  We’ll 
> burn two bits for hbh and e2e.  I propose the following encoding:
> 00 — No PSD (go back to sleep)
> 01 — if you are a transit or end node, you SHOULD look at the PSD
> 10 — if you are a transit or end node, you MUST look at the PSD (use 
> with care)
> 11 — if you are a transit node, nothing interesting for you in the PSD; 
> if you are an end node, look at the PSD.  (i.e., no hbh, only e2e PSD).
> 
> Note that in the naive approach:
> 00 — no PSD
> 01 — only hbh PSD
> 10 — only e2e PSD
> 11 — both hbh & e2e PSD

I like the first better than than the second, isn't it true that hbh is 
always treated with LER's as if they were transit nodes?

/Loa
> 
> The action for 01 and 10 is pretty much the same.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Kireeti.
> 
>> On Oct 11, 2021, at 10:48, Kireeti Kompella <[e-mail] 
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Greg,
>>
>> There were separate indicators for h-by-h and e2e.  The e2e was 
>> removed following discussion in the DT; it will return in the next 
>> revision.
>>
>> Of course, the PSD carried and the processing needed will be different 
>> in the two cases as they carry different types of data.  Processing 
>> h-by-h will also have to deal with traversing a potentially large 
>> label stack (and occurs on many nodes), whereas processing e2e PSD 
>> will deal with a small label stack and just one node (the egress).
>>
>> :k
>>
>>> On Oct 11, 2021, at 09:27, Greg Mirsky <[e-mail] 
>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Loa,
>>> I have a clarification question. As I understand it, FAI is to signal 
>>> ancillary data that is processed in hop-by-hop or end-to-end manner 
>>> (John proposed to have a separate indicator for each use case). The 
>>> impact on transit nodes is, likely, different. Do you think we need 
>>> to consider these cases separately?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Greg
>>>
>>> On Sat, Oct 9, 2021 at 10:43 AM Loa Andersson <[e-mail] 
>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     Design Team,
>>>
>>>     I have one thing that I been thinking about.
>>>
>>>     If we consider future mpls encapsulated packet, what percentage will
>>>     carry indicators and ancillary data?
>>>
>>>     /Loa
>>>     -- 
>>>
>>>     Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
>>>     <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>     Senior MPLS Expert [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>     Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: [phone]
>>>
>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>     mpls mailing list
>>>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>>>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> mpls mailing list
>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls 
>>> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>
>>
> 

-- 

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