Re: [mpls] 答复: SR-MPLS-TP: Question on draft-xiong-pce-pcep-extension-sr-tp

Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Wed, 10 April 2019 10:26 UTC

Return-Path: <loa@pi.nu>
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 BEAD21200E6; Wed, 10 Apr 2019 03:26:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 5z7fEfi0IyrL; Wed, 10 Apr 2019 03:26:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pipi.pi.nu (pipi.pi.nu [83.168.239.141]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F690120099; Wed, 10 Apr 2019 03:26:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.22.5.136] (unknown [46.218.58.220]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: loa@pi.nu) by pipi.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2EAD533F5AF; Wed, 10 Apr 2019 12:26:38 +0200 (CEST)
To: xiong.quan@zte.com.cn
Cc: pce@ietf.org, draft-xiong-pce-pcep-extension-sr-tp@ietf.org, gregory.mirsky@ztetx.com, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>
References: <201904101547214513821@zte.com.cn>
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
Message-ID: <e622af91-531e-9500-fda5-cc865ca2c384@pi.nu>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2019 12:26:35 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <201904101547214513821@zte.com.cn>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/hahTpzw8lF4xi88mLR2CAUyoYWo>
Subject: Re: [mpls] =?utf-8?b?562U5aSNOiBTUi1NUExTLVRQOiBRdWVzdGlvbiBvbiBk?= =?utf-8?q?raft-xiong-pce-pcep-extension-sr-tp?=
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: Wed, 10 Apr 2019 10:26:43 -0000

Quan,


I think you are right that this discussion will be of interest
for the SPRING and MPLS working group.

I have copied the working group mailing lists.

On 2019-04-10 09:47, xiong.quan@zte.com.cn wrote:
> 
> Hi Loa,
> 
> 
> Thanks for your review and inspired comment! It is very important and 
> much appreciated.
> 
> 
> Refer to your question, we proposed the terminology of the "SR-MPLS-TP" 
> in the following use case draft.
> 
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hu-mpls-sr-inter-domain-use-cases/>https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hu-mpls-sr-inter-domain-use-cases/ 
> 
> 
> 
> We plan to work on the definition and scope of SR-MPLS-TP and start 
> discussion in MPLS and SPRING working group next week.
> 
> Welcome to review and discuss about that draft and provide suggestions 
> for SR-MPLS-TP!
> 
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Quan
> 
> 
> 
> 原始邮件
> *发件人:*LoaAndersson <loa@pi.nu>;
> *收件人:*pce@ietf.org 
> <pce@ietf.org>;draft-xiong-pce-pcep-extension-sr-tp@ietf.org 
> <draft-xiong-pce-pcep-extension-sr-tp@ietf.org>;;
> *日 期 :*2019年04月10日 03:55
> *主 题 :**SR-MPLS-TP: Question on draft-xiong-pce-pcep-extension-sr-tp*
> Authors, Working Group,
> 
> MPLS-TP is defined as a network that:
> 
>     "It MUST be possible to operate and configure the MPLS-TP data
>      plane without any IP forwarding capability in the MPLS-TP data
>      plane. (RFC 5654, section 2.3, requirement 36.)"
> 
>      ...
> 
>    "It MUST be possible to provide protection for the MPLS-TP data
>     plane without any IP forwarding capability in the MPLS-TP data
>     plane. (RFC 5654, section 2.5.1.1, requirement 63.)"
> 
> In fact most MPLS-TP networks are deployed without IP in the data
> plane.
> 
> SR-MPLS on the other hand is a technology that is defined to USE
> IGPs to distribute MPLS-labels, and thus requires IP in the data
> plane.
> 
> PCEP also runs over TCP/IP.
> 
> The draft does not discuss this. I think this is needed, do you
> have plans to do so?
> 
> /Loa
> -- 
> 
> 
> Loa Andersson                        email: loa@pi.nu
> Senior MPLS Expert
> Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: +46 739 81 21 64
> 
> 

-- 


Loa Andersson                        email: loa@pi.nu
Senior MPLS Expert
Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: +46 739 81 21 64