Re: [mpls] MPLS label and LSE data models

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Hi Acee,
I think rather of the contrary, Static MPLS LSP must include TC and TTL.
And Bottom-of-the-stack flag as well (I don't see it in grouping
mpls-label-stack
of the ietf-routing-types).

Regards,
Greg

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 4:55 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Greg, et al,
>
> From: Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>
> Date: Monday, June 5, 2017 at 6:28 PM
> To: "[e-mail]" <draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-
> [e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <
> [e-mail]>
> Cc: Routing WG <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> Subject: MPLS label and LSE data models
> Resent-From: <[e-mail]>
> Resent-To: Yingzhen Qu <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>,
> Acee Lindem <[e-mail]>, Christian Hopps <[e-mail]>, <
> [e-mail]>
> Resent-Date: Monday, June 5, 2017 at 6:28 PM
>
> Dear Authors, et.al,
> I've got a question, or several of them, about data models of MPLS label
> and MPLS label stack element (LSE). I ahve not followed the discussions and
> apologize if these already were considered, discussed.
> In the Routing Types document I've found that only MPLS label being
> modeled but not the MPLS LSE. As result, models that use
> rt-types:mpls-label, e.g. YANG DAta Model for MPLS Static LSPs, defines
> outgoing labels not as array of LSEs but as array (leaf-list) of MPLS
> labels. In the latter document I don't see how TTL and Traffic Class (TC)
> are presented for each of labels in the array. Hence my questions:
>
>    - should there be data model of MPLS LSE in rt-types (it does have TTL
>    and TC but separately);
>
>
>    - should data model of Static MPLS LSP use MPLS LSE model rather than
>    model of only 20 bit-long label.
>
> Where else so you see  a requirement for a label stack with entries that
> don’t contain TC and TTL? This seems specific to static provisioning of
> static LSPs rather than a general requirement for ietf-routing-types.
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
>
> Appreciate you comments.
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
>