Re: [mpls] Clarification on the motivation of draft-xu-spring-islands-connection-over-ip-05

Xuxiaohu <> Thu, 07 April 2016 22:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AEF712D169; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 15:39:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.231
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.231 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Cm-rP-DqUkkv; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 15:39:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7A80F12D118; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 15:39:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (EHLO ([]) by (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id CHA09445; Thu, 07 Apr 2016 22:39:46 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 23:39:46 +0100
Received: from ([fe80::a54a:89d2:c471:ff]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Fri, 8 Apr 2016 06:39:41 +0800
From: Xuxiaohu <>
To: Eric C Rosen <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [mpls] Clarification on the motivation of draft-xu-spring-islands-connection-over-ip-05
Thread-Index: AQHRkBgULgoheUag70W81YSz/dG9Vp985QYAgAI0iT4=
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 22:39:41 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>, <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A090203.5706E1B3.002F, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 0e4d05dc9241ebb9e9634874a34d1850
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Clarification on the motivation of draft-xu-spring-islands-connection-over-ip-05
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 22:39:50 -0000

Hi Eric,

发件人: Eric C Rosen []
发送时间: 2016年4月7日 4:48
收件人: Xuxiaohu;
主题: Re: [mpls] Clarification on the motivation of draft-xu-spring-islands-connection-over-ip-05

On 4/6/2016 11:37 AM, Xuxiaohu wrote:
> The situation in MPLS-SR is a little bit complex since the outgoing label for a given /32 or /128 prefix FEC could be learnt either from the IGP next-hop of that FEC or the originator of that FEC due to the IGP flooding property. In the former case, the IGP next-hop for a given FEC is taken as the next-hop of the received MPLS packet belonging to that FEC; in the latter case, the originator of that FEC is taken as the next-hop of the MPLS packet belonging to that FEC ... the latter case belongs to the "remote label distribution peer" case as defined in RFC3031

I don't believe this is correct.  In SR, the fact that label L was
advertised by node N does not imply that a packet with L at the top of
the stack needs to be tunneled to N.  In the typical case, the packet

[Xiaohu] The FEC associated the above label L is the /32 or 128/ prefix of node N. When the IGP next-hop towards that FEC is a non-MPLS node, the LSR receiving the above MPLS packet with top label of L is desired to forward that MPLS packet towards node N via an IP-based tunnel. In this case, the node N is the remote peer for that FEC.

Best regards,

would just follow the IGP best path, and all the intermediate nodes
would be expected to recognize the label at the top of the stack.  If
the intermediate nodes are expected to recognize the label,  this is not
the "remote label distribution peer case".

You seem to be positing a case where two nodes are in the same IGP
domain, and same SPRING domain, but there is no LSP that can be used to
transport packets from one to the other.   It would be somewhat unusual
to have an IGP domain in which some nodes support MPLS and some don't.
In BIER, we do accommodate this sort of situation, where some of the
nodes in the BIER domain do not support BIER.  But I don't know whether
that sort of scenario needs to be supported for MPLS-SR.  Do you have a
particular use case in mind?