Re: [mpls] [spring] to progress draft-cheng-spring-mpls-path-segment
Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com> Sat, 23 February 2019 01:25 UTC
Return-Path: <rgandhi.ietf@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 15774130EB0; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 17:25:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.988
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.988 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, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, 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 CLKDXiB2bdfu; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 17:25:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk1-x72b.google.com (mail-qk1-x72b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72b]) (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 E809B12D4E7; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 17:25:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk1-x72b.google.com with SMTP id i5so2254832qkd.13; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 17:25:13 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=9Ef8uLW3ZLsLWHBuz0f68IRLAEaO+akIaI7uIifOi7M=; b=c/mveP4aH1vfdHFT9TLHXNDEbtyBSsSeUI/83nOJYOqZazlblRTbyZri72SH2Fuse1 A3VidQ7hsDPhJdt29ew8/V6NN9tDfmavahWoTSjis7f1JUzVsESzyGAaEz1IeCRdphzd sD5kaH13fQjW+836PHGDADszwJh3+R0GvWaEsjfFKJ7HHWW/P1rmdHU2sAFKzBa/0wra 9+0WRE2osdqKYZhvtkA4FF2oRPYeNp/DKv2dB8aIjgiKP+RB8gCxX0YM2bxTlEg/yQ5L ZbdMHUF4yeoZ27iaiOislu9t3J5dfQ57waWTbGVBOnWtkWuSWBH5JoL3+XdSyIkMVfk8 E0cQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=9Ef8uLW3ZLsLWHBuz0f68IRLAEaO+akIaI7uIifOi7M=; b=q0llbonRwf9+fchp+MqkofazIKnGQuHYT8Ve5kFXb9WaluopPb7ioa/IoiRmNTioMU CiHT3UuhH39jTM1JNetN1Tl8pJcisbSYOjNFbF2L0q3pOUAprbIhuknOwnSSYQX34/Yl GnLgF/d3BJ9jQbvCMjFbc/wQJkXpfQRzfCwy5uRdqy1WbfJAqjuc/5WLtJYp6BdpvJif uCoQSIZNgRCiGchifLXTtzVDPjXvjo+Q7AW3hUh/eAR75PduEgcLUKw1a86JHyJq/Uoc jcJlVYvy2NB3WkurzERNKMrRk8cEltqhEDOV4ncBm7Y6SDtBB5EIPOr4H81si/f0/BBQ cPQw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAuZdhhIfp3D219N2r6mnRxTPaNuqTeRB8jfXjo//y0s9cXYM6SAF gvPkpgMnp/OYU57c4nwOP0BDqC+ZOYvPm4dbvQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IZZ5bPM37JNUQl/eoaR12g+KEfGOIs52cSfz8d+Z03qcJl3H551/qYLqFtnrjJuLG0Mw1ksBpqF/RKAw7DEyiA=
X-Received: by 2002:a37:c442:: with SMTP id h2mr4932918qkm.53.1550885112590; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 17:25:12 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <0980ce7c-047c-519f-e7d5-98d32b498482@pi.nu> <9419b7d7-87ef-151f-5ed8-b0f78c6e83af@gmail.com> <AM6PR03MB3830EBBF1D04E91C35E7B8C99D670@AM6PR03MB3830.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CA+RyBmVObxJqsYvntWBR3RWq3=fTs72y-4Zb3mM2aHnmLZZx1A@mail.gmail.com> <050301d4c590$445f5d50$cd1e17f0$@com> <CA+RyBmXjqT385Y5XdrJ++OALNy7QdtDouePM6jt8ZDygAwLxMg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+RyBmXjqT385Y5XdrJ++OALNy7QdtDouePM6jt8ZDygAwLxMg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 20:25:00 -0500
Message-ID: <CAMZsk6fYZ_5aBhNNgOQ7Txvoi9J17D415m_ws5-yQWR2xtn7CA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Cc: Weiqiang Cheng <chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com>, mpls@ietf.org, spring <spring@ietf.org>, Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>, draft-cheng-spring-mpls-path-segment@ietf.org, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000039367b058285947d"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/e6oz37k17MJIH_lCoKDfbfDYOAc>
Subject: Re: [mpls] [spring] to progress draft-cheng-spring-mpls-path-segment
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Sat, 23 Feb 2019 01:25:18 -0000
Hi Greg, I am not sure if the question has been answered. I would think GAL is at the bottom of the label stack. Thanks, Rakesh On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 4:24 PM Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Weiqiang Cheng, > thank you for your expedient response to my questions. The document states > that one of the use cases for the Path segment is to be used as a > performance, packet loss and/or delay, measurement session identifier. I > think that RFC 6374 is the most suitable for PM OAM in SR-MPLS environment. > Of course, the type of the encapsulated message can be identified using the > destination UDP port number with IP/UDP encapsulation. But another option > is to use G-ACh encapsulation. That would require the use of GAL. And that > is how I've arrived at my original question (I should have explained it > better, my apologies): > > How the Path segment and GAL are placed relative to each other in the > SR-MPLS label stack? > > Regards, > Greg > > On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 4:40 PM Weiqiang Cheng < > chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com> wrote: > >> Hi Greg, >> >> Thanks a lot for your comments. >> >> My comments are in-line. >> >> >> >> B.R. >> >> Weiqiang Cheng >> >> >> >> *发件人:* Greg Mirsky [mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com] >> *发送时间:* 2019年2月15日 3:37 >> *收件人:* Alexander Vainshtein >> *抄送:* spring@ietf.org; Stewart Bryant; >> draft-cheng-spring-mpls-path-segment@ietf.org; mpls@ietf.org; Loa >> Andersson >> *主题:* Re: [spring] to progress draft-cheng-spring-mpls-path-segment >> >> >> >> Dear All, >> >> I concur with all what has been said in support of the adoption of this >> draft by SPRING WG. The document is well-written, addresses the real >> problem in SR-MPLS, and the proposed solution is technically viable. >> >> My comments and questions are entirely for further discussion: >> >> - would the draft be expanded to demonstrate how "the Path Segment >> may be used to identify an SR-MPLS Policy, its Candidate-Path (CP) or a SID >> List (SL)"? >> >> [Weiqiang] Yes, It is necessary and we will add some text to demonstrate >> this in the future version. >> >> - as many use cases for the Path Segment are related to OAM >> operations, it would be helpful to expand on the use of GAL and the Path >> Segment. >> >> [Weiqiang] It is always helpful to have more use cases. However, >> The GAL is used today in MPLS-TP LSPs to flag the G-Ach and is used for OAM >> packets only while the Path segment is used for data packets for the each >> traffic flow. It is a little bit different. >> >> Regards, >> >> Greg >> >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 1:12 AM Alexander Vainshtein < >> Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele..com <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>> >> wrote: >> >> +1. >> >> >> >> I have been following this draft from its -00 revision. The current >> revision has resolved most of the issues I (and others) have been raised >> (e.g., elimination of excessive options). >> >> >> >> From my POV, in its current state the draft meets two basic requirements >> for the WG adoption: >> >> 1. It addresses a real and relevant problem, namely the MPLS Flow >> Identification problem discussed in general in RFC 8372 >> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8372> and scoped to SR-MPLS LSPs in this >> draft. Specifics of SR-MPLS include the need to provide end-to-end liveness >> check that is one of the requirements explicitly specified in Section 2 of RFC >> 8355 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8355>. >> >> 2. It provides a reasonable (from my POV) approach to solution of >> this problem. >> >> >> >> I also concur with Stewart’s comment about strong similarity between the >> approach taken in this draft for SR-MPLS and generic work in progress on >> synonymous flow labels >> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-sfl-framework-04> that has >> been already adopted as a MPLS WG item. To me this is yet another >> indication that the draft should be adopted. >> >> >> >> My 2c, >> >> Sasha >> >> >> >> Office: +972-39266302 >> >> Cell: +972-549266302 >> >> Email: Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: spring <spring-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Stewart Bryant >> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2019 12:48 PM >> To: Loa Andersson <loa@pi..nu <loa@pi.nu>>; spring@ietf.org; >> draft-cheng-spring-mpls-path-segment@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [spring] to progress draft-cheng-spring-mpls-path-segment >> >> >> >> I have just read the draft and agree that it should be adopted by the WG. >> It solves an important problem in instrumenting and protecting an SR path. >> >> >> >> It should be noted that we needed to do something very similar in >> mainstream MPLS via the synonymous label work which is already adopted. >> >> However SL did not address the SR case.. We therefore need this path >> label work to be progressed. >> >> >> >> - Stewart >> >> >> >> On 10/02/2019 08:11, Loa Andersson wrote: >> >> > Working Group, >> >> > >> >> > I have reviewed draft-cheng-spring-mpls-path-segment and as far as I >> >> > can see, it is ready for wg adoption. >> >> > >> >> > There were some comments in Bangkok, but due to the many collisions >> >> > between working groups at that meeting I couldn't attend the SPRING >> >> > f2f. >> >> > >> >> > The minutes are not clear, but as far as I understand, there is >> >> > nothing that can't be resolved in the wg process. >> >> > >> >> > /Loa >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> spring mailing list >> >> spring@ietf.org >> >> https://www..ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring >> >> >> >> ___________________________________________________________________________ >> >> This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains >> information which is >> CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If you have >> received this >> transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, phone or fax, and then >> delete the original >> and all copies thereof. >> >> ___________________________________________________________________________ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> spring mailing list >> spring@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring >> >> _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > spring@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring >
- Re: [mpls] [spring] to progress draft-cheng-sprin… Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: [mpls] [spring] to progress draft-cheng-sprin… Greg Mirsky
- [mpls] 答复: [spring] to progress draft-cheng-sprin… Weiqiang Cheng
- Re: [mpls] [spring] to progress draft-cheng-sprin… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [mpls] [spring] to progress draft-cheng-sprin… Rakesh Gandhi
- Re: [mpls] [spring] to progress draft-cheng-sprin… Loa Andersson
- Re: [mpls] [spring] to progress draft-cheng-sprin… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [mpls] [spring] to progress draft-cheng-sprin… Loa Andersson
- Re: [mpls] [spring] to progress draft-cheng-sprin… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [mpls] [spring] to progress draft-cheng-sprin… Loa Andersson
- Re: [mpls] [spring] to progress draft-cheng-sprin… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [mpls] [spring] to progress draft-cheng-sprin… Chengli (Cheng Li)
- Re: [mpls] [spring] to progress draft-cheng-sprin… Royi Zigler