Re: [mpls] [PWE3] draft-yong-pwe3-enhance-ecmp-lfat-01.txt

Yong Lucy <lucyyong@huawei.com> Thu, 04 March 2010 00:20 UTC

Return-Path: <lucyyong@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0A683A89D9; Wed, 3 Mar 2010 16:20:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eKydKK8PHVgt; Wed, 3 Mar 2010 16:20:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (szxga03-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.66]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9E903A89D8; Wed, 3 Mar 2010 16:20:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (szxga03-in [172.24.2.9]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0KYQ00MZ2E9RYD@szxga03-in.huawei.com>; Thu, 04 Mar 2010 08:20:15 +0800 (CST)
Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0KYQ005IIE9R0J@szxga03-in.huawei.com>; Thu, 04 Mar 2010 08:20:15 +0800 (CST)
Received: from y736742 ([10.124.12.122]) by szxml04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0KYQ00DM5E9OAN@szxml04-in.huawei.com>; Thu, 04 Mar 2010 08:20:15 +0800 (CST)
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 18:20:11 -0600
From: Yong Lucy <lucyyong@huawei.com>
In-reply-to: <4B8EF6AD.1090603@cisco.com>
To: stbryant@cisco.com, raymond.key@ieee.org
Message-id: <000c01cabb30$76276cc0$7a0c7c0a@china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Thread-index: Acq7LQjbXB89U3PLRh2qEEphOzvASwAAFLsA
References: <201003032018.o23KIHKU022838@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> <4B8EF6AD.1090603@cisco.com>
Cc: mpls@ietf.org, 'Peilin Yang' <yangpeilin@huawei.com>, pwe3@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mpls] [PWE3] draft-yong-pwe3-enhance-ecmp-lfat-01.txt
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 00:20:24 -0000

Hi Bryant and Raymond,

We will be glad to present this to MPLS WG as well. As Raymond points out,
7.1 in FAT-PW states that "the semantics of a label stack entry (LSE) as
defined by [RFC3032] can not be modified." In fact, RFC5462 already modify
the semantics. It is better to rephrase it.

Although Flow Label in FAT-PW uses MPLS label semantics. It has a different
usage from PW label or LSP label, i.e. it is never on the top of label
stack. Thus, DiffServ or ECN do not use Flow Label TC bits. FAT-PW solution
does not use Flow Label TC bits either. Enhanced ECMP proposes using one
Flow Label TC bit for flow classification. It aims on the improvement on
network resource utilization or optimization, not for DiffServ purpose.

Comments on this are welcome.

Thanks,
Lucy

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:stbryant@cisco.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 5:54 PM
> To: raymond.key@ieee.org
> Cc: Yong Lucy; mpls@ietf.org; 'Peilin Yang'; pwe3@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [PWE3] draft-yong-pwe3-enhance-ecmp-lfat-01.txt
> 
> I think that any discussion on redefining  the  TC bits needs to start
> in MPLS WG. If they are happy that it can be done without breaking
> anything the we can reserve the bits, but we do need to think through
> the implications (past and future) of applying different semantics to
> those bits.
> 
> - Stewart
> 
> 
> 
> Raymond Key wrote:
> > Hi Lucy,
> >
> > You suggest in section 5 re-defining the three TC bits in the flow
label.
> The FAT-PW draft defined the new flow label in the label stack and
> mentioned in its section 7.1. "... that the semantics of a label stack
> entry (LSE) as defined by [RFC3032] cannot be modified ..."
> >
> > Is it worthwhile to discuss with the FAT-PW authors about re-defining
> the TC bits in flow label as "reserved for per flow characteristics" in
> the FAT-PW draft?
> >
> > Raymond Key
> >
> >
> >
> >> Yong Lucy <lucyyong@huawei.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> WG,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> We have published draft-ietf-pwe3-enhance-ecmp-lfat-01.txt. It proposes
> >> an
> >> enhanced ECMP method that performs differentiated treatments on small
> >> and
> >> large flows and large/small flow indication on PW flow label. The
> method
> >> significantly improves hash based load balance.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> E-mail commons are welcome prior to IETF77 meeting.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Lucy Yong
> >>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > pwe3 mailing list
> > pwe3@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
> >
> >