Re: [mpls] Consensus poll on Design directive for the MPLS Open DT

[Haoyu Song <[e-mail]>]

Hi WGs and design team,

This was indeed my original position on this issue. However, I remember in one meeting Stewart gave an counter argument against this which I think also makes sense: what if for a packet with GAL/G-Ach,  the forwarding decision is determined by the ancillary data? If they cannot coexist, we may rule out useful use cases.

I understand that one concern is the location conflict of G-ACH and ancillary data especially when G-ACH size may not be easy to decide. If this is the case, can we simply make that G-ACH, if exist, must be located after all ancillary data? After all, we can know the size of ancillary data easily. 

I just raise this point for further discussion. It's fine for me to go either direction.

Best,
Haoyu

 

-----Original Message-----
From: mpls <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Loa Andersson
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2021 1:36 AM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; DetNet Chairs <[e-mail]>
Subject: [mpls] Consensus poll on Design directive for the MPLS Open DT

Working Group, Design Tean,

The Open DT has discussed the relationship between GAL/G-ACh and the new methods for indicating and transporting ancillary data in and after the label stack.

We have decided to give the MPLS Open DT the following design directive:

---------------------------- start ---------------------------------

Following the discussion in the MPLS Open DT 2021-08-19 we have have decided to give the MPLS Indicator and Open Design team this design directive.

RFC 5586 "MPLS Generic Associated Channel" (including the updates by RFC 7274, RFC 6423, RFC 7214, and RFC 7026) will not be changed by the MPLS Open Design Team. The associated channel (GAL/G-ACh) will continue to operate as specified. No changes should be made to the associated channel, without careful coordination with what will be specified by the MPLS Pen design team.

The Open design team will continue define methods bases on indicators (e.g. FAI-style SPL) and ancillary data.

A packet can not carry both the associated channel and the new methods for transporting ancillary data indicated by the FAI-style SPL, i.e. the GAL and the FAI-style SPL can not both be present in a label stack. The reason is that the way the ACH is specified there is a high risk of collision of "data after the BoS" specified by other methods.

---------------------end --------------------------------------------

The design team will start working according to this design directive, but for a period of two weeks we will comments on the directive.

Please send comments to the MPLS wg mailing list ([e-mail]).

/Loa

for the co-chairs
-- 

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

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
[e-mail]
https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmpls&amp;data=04%7C01%7Chaoyu.song%40futurewei.com%7C8d880f52f56d4375931508d966da3cbd%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637653909777749156%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=AzpuKWTF1eQzHN%2Bu4HhdKX6C%2FGUt0KrZWdd1kL%2BCfbM%3D&amp;reserved=0