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>>u>>; 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
>