Return-Path: X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C94731B2F3F for ; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 05:25:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.276 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.276 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, MIME_HTML_ONLY=0.723, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 jOSkvH-AmXFb for ; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 05:25:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wm0-x229.google.com (mail-wm0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::229]) (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 3A5271B2F16 for ; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 05:25:22 -0800 (PST) Received: by wmff134 with SMTP id f134so41426554wmf.0 for ; Wed, 04 Nov 2015 05:25:20 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:disposition-notification-to:date:from:reply-to :user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=+A1++B8X1+mwd01O4UQ4Jck9O8mUBtY0exK8n9v3djw=; b=PI++JbXb1oheIt0hWlVs3H7ZZWZuNQ5v1rNnonC7Q10MRJUYw+iMHz+ngFdr6uym4R dDWPwBR8slwXU6PdLUCaBUjJrY/SxRjYzdmxYpyAPvNqs4C3DaEOmLRuq8FQATbK9dqd rRWboGVkO/dJ9qgGRL/YyVKY5uAXob+CVMu7sUNQCtUUJiwSAzRUqrWc+HJS+jYiDYFt la/7dEL2AQ5ksRtxeuLNc0XvW6ZB01BJcK4CrVdGxgWzTl/5aySWcgC1ABbtXriHm2cA 9+rmXjmx/a4ZMSLLLshDA3eEHRWg1lyt//b2mgcGEfcktKjXSn6UuuaI993VbNESYr7n rT0w== X-Received: by 10.28.16.132 with SMTP id 126mr24166698wmq.86.1446643520465; Wed, 04 Nov 2015 05:25:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from McAsterix.local ([92.109.37.136]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id vr10sm1579588wjc.38.2015.11.04.05.25.19 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 04 Nov 2015 05:25:19 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <563A073E.9040808@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2015 14:25:18 +0100 From: Huub van Helvoort User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lizhenbin , "mpls@ietf.org" References: <5A5B4DE12C0DAC44AF501CD9A2B01A8D8CA63EA4@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <5A5B4DE12C0DAC44AF501CD9A2B01A8D8CA63EA4@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [mpls] Solicit Opinions on Definition of MPLS Global Label X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: huubatwork@gmail.com List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2015 13:25:23 -0000

Hello Zhenbin, 您好，

Regarding global identifiers, did you have a look at RFC 6923?

Best regards, Huub.

Hi MPLSers,

As the development of MPLS technologies, many new label concepts beyond RFC3031 are proposed. And in segment routing MPLS label can be

allocated and flooded in the network which means the meaning of the lablel can be understood by all nodes in the network. It is totally different from

the label distribution behavior of LDP, RSVP-TE, and MP-BGP. From my point of view we need not argue if it is global label or global ID. In fact, the

possible persons who read the drafts of protocol extensions for segment routing which incorporate the label allocation may be confused that MPLS WG as

the base of MPLS work seems to have nothing with the work. But the challenge of definition of global label truly exists which has been proposed in the draft

https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-li-mpls-global-label-usecases-03.txt. Hope you can refer to Section 4 of the draft.

The debates on MPLS global label have lasted for a long time. The opinions can be classified as following:

Opinion 1: Segment Routing has nothing with global label and please do not make it bother MPLS WG. But it seems a little hard to convince some MPLSers.

Opinion 2: The usecase truly exists. But the concept of global label is too big. It is hard to allocate a label which is unique spanning multiple domains or

as IP address which is unique all over world since it is not a scalable way or it is hard to achieve the goal. Then maybe it is a better way to narrow the

scope to rename the global label as Domain-wide label, Network-wide label, etc.

Opinion 3: The global label can be kept to cover more label concepts which label behaviors in the control plane and forward plane are different form the

traditional LDP/RSVP-TE/MP-BGP.

Since I could not get more time in my presentation to collect your opinions, if convenient please help feedback your opinion in your mailing list. Hope through

the discussion we can make some consensus.

Best Regards,

Zhenbin(Robin)

-- 
*****************************************************************
              请记住，你是独一无二的，就像其他每一个人一样