[mpls] MPLS label and LSE data models

Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Mon, 05 June 2017 22:28 UTC

Return-Path: <gregimirsky@gmail.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 C96A1120721; Mon, 5 Jun 2017 15:28:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 vHZq15X2yurs; Mon, 5 Jun 2017 15:28:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot0-x233.google.com (mail-ot0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 094D4129548; Mon, 5 Jun 2017 15:28:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ot0-x233.google.com with SMTP id k4so5225856otd.0; Mon, 05 Jun 2017 15:28:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=m+pC6HpER3DTUq379naw6lSFB/WAIgr4yPUUwSK9DRk=; b=VCXJ44U9dKKLYkgq/kNffiQx8Cz+RgqHSkpc0vKk/zE9AEHjdM/uN84ZeDyAp/6BAd AYaLZp2CCC9AeIASP/xWgVFWe232blR8cJk6VFp6tiM+TTnyXmfJlcY4d9P3kZE0Yluj h+OH/Jgcgtdbk7YWftQaTKgN6h16PG9jYBYOy2SrtO/IC7ILswud05j7bkEa4Y32L2Ax K8JTcQmpRzcpENE0fRJjL2kvnaqzOva1DsWo8/Ip6hOu3YOvjSrs8HKOTU/DgkXYNLoP p9UY7K5AM6GZht+bEB1TDYWkBIpSecFfROB1yLuZHVlFLVi5GMryX48FLx8rNGgDPaEr pLfw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=m+pC6HpER3DTUq379naw6lSFB/WAIgr4yPUUwSK9DRk=; b=TDQLSoKO9RzTQVKZ9c7rGw18ZlAtPP6qTLSrFHRbr71fobqponJZuUrKniQBzulcvL 4WsN32mTngb6eD3Uf2rvBzEvWa9ZJjXrsybE2VajgdnFjhtZ4ywzizyGO5bVBChj+Q76 ZLdT5zzZXlAnXCmU6ZimP3QaJUMc2nObOAwx+JgKQmEMMMBJJuHbu2A3H8+tbqr+uoBG 5zaDcDQ/sZahNgzlZMyxAq7KCzo8aXLkxV9LprMiqxcJBTYA9tMgiLlfalqh/Z+zq3Q6 ZlGqmhJA52uCaWoNHO8lzf4k5KrwoqS9GJUqvHew2z0wfAMkUubYl3BbFtH5lSOwX4y7 0N/w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcBqC0vbrGlIJdiecxDgTGlGnrSipYiglPlmKubS42unxt0tKrrv JLX3xQkkfccaFJ4C94n+j2XxB5dKog==
X-Received: by 10.157.52.221 with SMTP id t29mr13159277otd.0.1496701686191; Mon, 05 Jun 2017 15:28:06 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.157.52.225 with HTTP; Mon, 5 Jun 2017 15:28:05 -0700 (PDT)
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2017 15:28:05 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmVH=KCi3T8u2dB_WaKBOLheYwT4q0d+tpYdT-Z2iTZ+og@mail.gmail.com>
To: draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-static-yang@ietf.org
Cc: "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11405552571ef305513e049b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/Tqin8sg378kCCTDYfpsi9uasetU>
Subject: [mpls] MPLS label and LSE data models
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Mon, 05 Jun 2017 22:28:12 -0000

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.

Appreciate you comments.

Regards,
Greg