Re: [mpls] FW: New Version Notification for draft-keten-mpls-expbit-00.txt
Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Fri, 16 September 2016 03:03 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 3556612B12F for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Sep 2016 20:03:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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] 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 Z3bvxkuzdPR6 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Sep 2016 20:03:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yb0-x235.google.com (mail-yb0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c09::235]) (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 0EAF312B139 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Sep 2016 20:03:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yb0-x235.google.com with SMTP id u125so47914984ybg.3 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Sep 2016 20:03:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=uxwK/IH03dtqSs9EAo8QIxlo3lcE7zPk/uTceqox/WI=; b=nGzN0+aq7sHBVXu6/xJYb2tjpJ8tLXxk0rEobSDM5qQVqhjAfbMpoRWA+InS6IJTvo Cy1t4hQT20tMCZNTrTkrzG0Tkpm3jwQxS+X+1dITyypvxKFDt334A6veoH561e8NXzwK h0+v20BHcmfAIl5mLvFaUuyJ0JfbvVVLz0ogLjMWgJlUIFOQMG+sKpnemL/xmxJHIFVQ zwln9PhbKcZa1NIczUrhTCleO+WvhvVBEjxcfIKl8OZkynmmMMUhdnD3vjj2iRZZ/vUu 9OAoproaykpmfk45/Y5WPeJy/HvtoVVGpAvZtNkOCAFhrBYolIKGWdqykUeo/6hBZtkK I39g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=uxwK/IH03dtqSs9EAo8QIxlo3lcE7zPk/uTceqox/WI=; b=leTAyO/3wAhHC1k06nRAsovOahF6F1nyesFYrSIhoQSEZu6wXuZ/2+RzMBdKKbeuQR seIw1mpWuTF9gCR8ZEDAcyJ5iBwenvCvFlyOPy/eEn59izt3uLqgb7ZM7q8YFoSUY5Zp /uEaOhESxBot8pfMJIroBtLKjff3MOALRYb1VyLniDu4BVlKt6uhDob41It9VVjpjSpA ppwUMRNTLDG1kjdcfU6en98fp3FXDBUUC3PNUG1fLHByfvZC41cBaMByenK/zbGWcmNV tis5s3Q6xsjLBehgd27FLa24fQIGbKj/vvR74nrBA85Vnc6PVMHeyh+8ZfjlUd9/EQbN 4RfQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwNT2jf4vtNnvixGJBFWrgw2a+axt0goAqfhvrdCsM7wn3ESKyVf+lj7FhkUs5xf6aD4Z7DhznGjyAMZdA==
X-Received: by 10.37.231.2 with SMTP id e2mr12136224ybh.79.1473995021103; Thu, 15 Sep 2016 20:03:41 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.37.15.2 with HTTP; Thu, 15 Sep 2016 20:03:39 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <HE1PR0301MB226665FAA24E984474FE024C9DF10@HE1PR0301MB2266.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <cvuifsybtov39macfmufuc5f.1473802811888@email.android.com> <0ea601d20e6b$47d77dc0$d7867940$@olddog.co.uk> <B81700F985BE844B8DD45271EF5E1524A369092D@S000MBX06.turktelekom.intra> <26a707263d8e4464a827013b4eea0f33@HE105662.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> <HE1PR0301MB2266BA8A6A7CE3FDDE15BA539DF10@HE1PR0301MB2266.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com> <B81700F985BE844B8DD45271EF5E1524A3690B58@S000MBX06.turktelekom.intra> <B81700F985BE844B8DD45271EF5E1524A3690B79@S000MBX06.turktelekom.intra> <HE1PR0301MB226630CA8E33F952F33701BD9DF10@HE1PR0301MB2266.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com> <iw6roctx047qs1yor3brv0f1.1473855687767@email.android.com> <HE1PR0301MB226665FAA24E984474FE024C9DF10@HE1PR0301MB2266.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2016 20:03:39 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmW3g30UqSfUo2TNtJV1YuWrTTUdaWnMXGqybxq=At=qHA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="94eb2c0b11e0a2a43b053c973589"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/X5QS2R3DQNrWjprg77N0PKZTlPM>
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] FW: New Version Notification for draft-keten-mpls-expbit-00.txt
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 03:03:46 -0000
Hi Umut, et. al, I concur with Sasha. Regards, Greg On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 5:39 AM, Alexander Vainshtein < Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com> wrote: > Umut, > > I can only repeat that from my POV we do not need *more traffic classes > within the MPLS domain*. Let’s agree to disagree about that if you wish. > > > > I am also *absolutely* *opposed* to any proposals to change the label > stack encoding because such a change would not be backward-compatible. > > FYI, attempts to change the label stack encoding have been already > rejected by the MPLS WG when T-MPLS was originally proposed; eventually, > MPLS-TP t(hat does not change label stack encoding) has replaced it. > > > > My 2c, > > Sasha > > > > Office: +972-39266302 > > Cell: +972-549266302 > > Email: Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com > > > > *From:* Umut Keten [mailto:umut.keten@turktelekom.com.tr] > *Sent:* Wednesday, September 14, 2016 3:27 PM > *To:* Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com> > > *Cc:* mpls@ietf.org > *Subject:* RE: [mpls] FW: New Version Notification for > draft-keten-mpls-expbit-00.txt > > > > Alexander hi, > > > > I don't agree. I think we need more QoS classes. I personally could do > with a lower class then BE, something like a trash class. > > > > I can map the lowest to BE and thats it, but some services I would like to > map lower. > > Mapping the more important BE one higher then BE is no option, it would > affect other services. > > > > Saying we don't need more QoS, surely you can't mean that. > > > > Krgrds, > > Umut > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------- Orijinal mesaj -------- > > Başlangıç tarihi: Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com> > > Tarih: 14 09 2016 15:04 (GMT+02:00) > > Alıcı: Umut Keten <umut.keten@turktelekom.com.tr> > > Cc: mpls@ietf.org > > Konu: RE: [mpls] FW: New Version Notification for > draft-keten-mpls-expbit-00.txt > > > > Umut, > > Mapping of DSCP to TC usually can be defined per ingress interface (when > an IP packet enters the MPLS domain). > > What is probably missing is ability to define this mapping per service > instance or per egress interface when the packet leaves the MPLS domain. > > > > What is not needed IMHO is more traffic classes within the MPLS domain. > > > > Regards, > > Sasha > > > > Office: +972-39266302 > > Cell: +972-549266302 > > Email: Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com > > > > *From:* mpls [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org <mpls-bounces@ietf.org>] *On > Behalf Of *Umut Keten > *Sent:* Wednesday, September 14, 2016 2:50 PM > *To:* mpls@ietf.org > *Subject:* Re: [mpls] FW: New Version Notification for > draft-keten-mpls-expbit-00.txt > > > > Ok I thought of something else. > > > > What if the architecture become like the below? > > > > > > > > Octets 0 1 2 3 4 > > > > Bits 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 > > > > Label -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- > > Stack | Label | EXP |S| TTL | X | > > Entry -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- > > > > Figure 1 > > > > Label: Label Value, 20 bit > > EXP/TC/COS: 3 bits defined as TC, RFC 5462 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5462> > > S: Bottom of Stack, 1 bit > > TTL: Time to Live, 6 bits > > X: Complimentary QoS bit > > > > > > We won’t touch the S bit and the sequence. If a old and not upgraded router would receive the X bit it would simply set a strange TTL value (what would be the impact of that?) > > > > A new router could make something complimentary to the QoS? > > > > > > Krgrds, > > Umut > > > > > > *From:* mpls [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org <mpls-bounces@ietf.org>] *On > Behalf Of *Umut Keten > *Sent:* Wednesday, September 14, 2016 2:46 PM > *To:* Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>; > N.Leymann@telekom.de; adrian@olddog.co.uk > *Cc:* mpls@ietf.org > *Subject:* RE: [mpls] FW: New Version Notification for > draft-keten-mpls-expbit-00.txt > > > > Hey Alexander, > > Example: I have multiple domains of ADSL. A Domain has premium BE traffic. > Yet at MPLS we receive the same DSCP bits. > > Same counts for mobile backhaul, as a telco provider we give backhaul to > multiple operators. > One operator I sell premium and I want him to have better BE traffic. Yet > they will arrive with the same bits set. > > But if I can differentiate them in the MPLS, I can say if I receive this > bit from this port I set to this and from this port to this. > > Currently we only have 8. I can't differentiate. > > Krgrds, > Umut > > > > > > > > > > [image: tt_logo_] > > > > *Umut Keten* > > > > Ürün ve Servis Kıdemli Mimarı > Ürün ve Servis Sunumu Direktörlüğü > Teknoloji Genel Müdür Yardımcılığı > > > > umut.keten@turktelekom.com.tr > > > > 03125551931 > > +90 (553) 349 96 69 > > * <http://www.4nokta5g.com/>* > > *Yasal Uyarı :* > > * Bu elektronik posta işbu linki kullanarak ulaşabileceğiniz Koşul ve > Şartlar dökümanına tabidir : * > *www.turktelekom.com.tr/tt/portal/email-yasal-uyari* > <http://www.turktelekom.com.tr/tt/portal/email-yasal-uyari> > > -----Original Message----- > From: Alexander Vainshtein [mailto:Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com > <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>] > Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 2:23 PM > To: N.Leymann@telekom.de; Umut Keten <umut.keten@turktelekom.com.tr>; > adrian@olddog.co.uk > Cc: mpls@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [mpls] FW: New Version Notification for > draft-keten-mpls-expbit-00.txt > > +1. > As I see it, fine QoS differentiation is required in the "bottleneck" > segments of the network, usually in the first/last mile. > And, AFAIK, neither IPTV set-top boxes, nor LTE Node Bs natively run MPLS; > they use plain IP. > So what you probably really need is ability to assign traffic classes > based on the DSCP values in IP headers of the packets that leave the MPLS > domain and continue as plain IP. Did I miss something? > > Regards, > Sasha > > Office: +972-39266302 > Cell: +972-549266302 > Email: Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: mpls [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org <mpls-bounces@ietf.org>] On > Behalf Of N.Leymann@telekom.de > Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 1:54 PM > To: umut.keten@turktelekom.com.tr; adrian@olddog.co.uk > Cc: mpls@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [mpls] FW: New Version Notification for > draft-keten-mpls-expbit-00.txt > > Hi, > > I think all the use cases can be fulfilled with the existing mechanisms, > no need to add more service differentiation to the MPLS network. In fact in > most of the cases you want to keep the number of classes as low as possible > (and do a suitable mapping at the network edges). > > Changes which require a "Greenfield" approach also from my point of view > expensive, because it requires the update of the whole network "at once" > (and we should also have in mind that networks are not necessarily single > vendor). > > Regards > > Nic > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: mpls [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org <mpls-bounces@ietf.org>] Im > Auftrag von Umut Keten > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 14. September 2016 12:19 > An: adrian@olddog.co.uk > Cc: mpls@ietf.org > Betreff: Re: [mpls] FW: New Version Notification for > draft-keten-mpls-expbit-00.txt > > Hey Adrian, > > > > What if I respond by asking you a question first? ;-) > Only fair :-) Yes > > >I think you are asking four questions that need to be handled separately. > Not really, I think this is a whole package at once and treated as > such. I believe this discussion should have started earlier though. > > >1. Do we need more service differentiation in MPLS networks? > My personal answer is definitely yes. My polling of some principle > engineers at vendors and various contacts in my environment (linkedin > included) would like to see this happening. > This actually a question for this group? People here in the mailing > list should answer this by their own experiences. > > Some examples where we could use some extra QoS from my own design > experiences: > > 1st was that every home should be able to have more iptv settop > boxes and the added requirement that if 1 of the boxes started using VoD it > should have priority in the network. (marketing request) > > 2nd LTE mobile backhaul which has 9 qos settings I couldn't match. > We are also doing DSL bonding with LTE (MPTCP) and the internet traffic > from LTE when bonded had to be lower then best effort so the normal mobile > user and our 800mhz spectrum would not be overutilized. > > 3rd government offices(who have a lot to say in Turkey) wanted > their internet traffic classsed. Their internet traffic was 'more' > important, they where willing to pay. > > 4th data over voice (POS) should have higher priority then normal > voice. > > > >2. Would MPLS routers be able to deliver the differentiation if the > packets > were marked accordingly? > Again my answer is yes(for Alcatel/Nokia SR routers) I have TAC > supported these. The other routers I should assume they should be able to > do so as well. > > >3. How should we achieve additional service differentiation in MPLS > networks. There are many possible approaches (TC bits, label stacks, > control plane, using some of the label bits, reworking the shim header > as you suggest, ...) and I don't (yet) have an opinion although it seems > to me that a non-backward compatible forwarding plane change is an > expensive solution. > > Expensive solution? I don't think so (experience from the timetra > OS Alcatel) However the vendors should answer this. > > My opinion is that an OS upgrade could be sufficient, after the > upgrade the routers could have a feature new/old. This then in turn could > be handled over NMS. > > >4. Are all 8 bits of the TTL field needed? > > I honestly don't think so, again this is something for the whole > group to answer. > > >Well, this works for greenfield, but this is not necessarily a field > upgrade (i.e., some implementations may need hardware upgrades) and that is > a really expensive solution. I guess the vendors will be delighted to sell > a whole set of new routers to replace what is deployed, but are the > operators willing to spend the money? And will they upgrade the whole > network in one go - that sounds like a little more than a flag day... maybe > a flag month? > > I answered this question partially above, I don't think an OS > upgrade will cost that much as you suggest. More drastic upgrades have been > performed in the past, this surely should not e one of them. > > > So this is just an example of a backwards compatibility issue. If > special settings of TTL are configurable options that can be disabled, then > everything will be fine (so long as you remember to configure your entire > network). On the other hand, if the special settings are more fundamental > then more protocol work may be needed. An approach here is to ask the > working group a specific question -- Does anyone know of reasons why the > MPLS TTL is set greater than 63? e > >Does anyone know of reasons why the MPLS TTL is set greater than 63? > Well ? Does someone? I have been looking for an answer for a long time now. > It is a waste of a lot of bits imho. Way better of in the QoS field :-) > > And yes someone had to be first Adrian, 32 QoS settings will be cheered > for. I had a eurake moment because I had to design impossible stuff last 2 > years and some of t I solved by making a MPLS above our current MPLS. > > Surely some of you had issue's when implementing Mobile Backhaul LTE? They > come with 9 QoS. > > And surely IoT is going to be a major problem? Anyone? > Let's say I have medical IoT's which should have high priority? Wouldn't > it be much simpler to have a QoS set for that? Because now it looks like > all IoT is going to be BE traffic. Wouldn't it be nice to differentiate > this? > > > Lets try to build on this Adrian and the rest of the group, because after > this day you all will also wonder why we have 8 bits for TTL and maybe all > these years we have wasted these bits :-) > > > Krgrds, > Umut > > PS: anyone else from the group going to participate in this discussion? > Would be nice to have more voices ;-) > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk <adrian@olddog.co.uk>] > Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 12:34 PM > To: Umut Keten <umut.keten@turktelekom.com.tr> > Cc: mpls@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [mpls] FW: New Version Notification for > draft-keten-mpls-expbit-00.txt > > Umut, > > > Thanks for your reply. I will answer your question regarding > > compatability after asking a question first. What is your opinion on > > the huge TTL and couldn't it be better used as QoS? > > What if I respond by asking you a question first? ;-) > > I think you are asking four questions that need to be handled separately. > 1. Do we need more service differentiation in MPLS networks? > 2. Would MPLS routers be able to deliver the differentiation if the packets > were marked accordingly? > 3. How should we achieve additional service differentiation in MPLS > networks. There are many possible approaches (TC bits, label stacks, > control plane, using some of the label bits, reworking the shim header > as you suggest, ...) and I don't (yet) have an opinion although it seems > to me that a non-backward compatible forwarding plane change is an > expensive solution. > 4. Are all 8 bits of the TTL field needed? > > > Regarding your question new/old format. > > My expectation is the following and correct me if I am wrong: I do > > not expect an MPLS network to be half upgraded with new format router. > > Well, this works for greenfield, but this is not necessarily a field > upgrade (i.e., some implementations may need hardware upgrades) and that is > a really expensive solution. I guess the vendors will be delighted to sell > a whole set of new routers to replace what is deployed, but are the > operators willing to spend the money? And will they upgrade the whole > network in one go - that sounds like a little more than a flag day... maybe > a flag month? > > > Your last question however regarding if the 255 is ever set for > > special reasons? I have no clue! Even so if it is ever set for some > > special occasion the more QoS possibilities surely should outweigh that. > > So this is just an example of a backwards compatibility issue. If special > settings of TTL are configurable options that can be disabled, then > everything will be fine (so long as you remember to configure your entire > network). On the other hand, if the special settings are more fundamental > then more protocol work may be needed. An approach here is to ask the > working group a specific question -- Does anyone know of reasons why the > MPLS TTL is set greater than 63? e > > I'd be really interested to hear what other operators think about your > problem statement. That's not because I don't believe you, but because I > find it interesting that others haven't previously raised the concern - but > someone has to be first :-) > > Cheers, > Adrian > > _______________________________________________ > mpls mailing list > mpls@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls > > _______________________________________________ > mpls mailing list > mpls@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls > > _______________________________________________ > mpls mailing list > mpls@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls > >
- [mpls] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ket… Umut Keten
- Re: [mpls] FW: New Version Notification for draft… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [mpls] FW: New Version Notification for draft… Umut Keten
- Re: [mpls] FW: New Version Notification for draft… Umut Keten
- Re: [mpls] FW: New Version Notification for draft… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [mpls] FW: New Version Notification for draft… Umut Keten
- Re: [mpls] FW: New Version Notification for draft… Huub van Helvoort
- Re: [mpls] FW: New Version Notification for draft… N.Leymann
- Re: [mpls] FW: New Version Notification for draft… Umut Keten
- Re: [mpls] FW: New Version Notification for draft… Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: [mpls] FW: New Version Notification for draft… Umut Keten
- Re: [mpls] FW: New Version Notification for draft… Umut Keten
- Re: [mpls] FW: New Version Notification for draft… Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: [mpls] FW: New Version Notification for draft… Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: [mpls] FW: New Version Notification for draft… Alexander Okonnikov
- Re: [mpls] FW: New Version Notification for draft… Umut Keten
- Re: [mpls] FW: New Version Notification for draft… Mark Tinka
- Re: [mpls] FW: New Version Notification for draft… Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: [mpls] FW: New Version Notification for draft… Pablo Frank
- Re: [mpls] FW: New Version Notification for draft… Umut Keten
- Re: [mpls] FW: New Version Notification for draft… Umut Keten
- Re: [mpls] FW: New Version Notification for draft… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [mpls] FW: New Version Notification for draft… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [mpls] FW: New Version Notification for draft… Umut Keten