Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-sitaraman-mpls-rsvp-shared-labels

Vishnu Pavan Beeram <> Mon, 23 October 2017 14:48 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 908BA139101; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 07:48:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id waBjZGNbY40R; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 07:48:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B06FA1390EE; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 07:48:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id j3so11955083pga.1; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 07:48:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=IENy4fvg03kmKSPLZWGC9EU44VZKeMdV2w6cfY9S8DM=; b=l+wl48KVRUeF6I7fXsFeh1ktGz04x9OlvAfsIS13NQP243leE5zD+nQl5Sv5HTnNez OmKcWESPbZDpdqSOMI98tLf1lmtdrYsQASf3RIpY110rsC/AQRcx3dcfk53jwds34NEZ AQa+kO8qb4piOCQgyVSuVu0PXapUzU+FEfRPYGfMfX4S+DjBdARY+B15YWGPZ27G0pj4 P9wAygZDgWxcdbDA7WsgWh5tVsdJPny0dEtaRd371vNzZy03UK7MvKRUXtbrzUotZpn0 jmpedPozBHlY5Mouol9/X8FTSl7Nfj/iS4EHHRouQrTBnCU2fEcMaoJhzCi/rMGmsCM0 qbVA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=IENy4fvg03kmKSPLZWGC9EU44VZKeMdV2w6cfY9S8DM=; b=DZEE6Kk153POKP8CkVKKsR24bt7NQehZ7D6AT1vujfKvqphzNzM+gZmsUNkpk4IJ8N 1ScFrTqJXRNnF0co+zCiftEIMI75aYVSkeUm0zoNbao2D7rxIT1fxh8prkjFpRQ6WAxr 9MRjlGYae11dtWVdgtYrUm/rghh0YsNh7pVrDMYRhHv6BGB4YyWvnSxk8fkAvWaSbHGk o7aiJrIxSOUyjCxsCkUN9VcN74zqUMrT4JZP2EIWcQ3yvxnUBb6HZcJx0kr35RJwamFX jgh1gLIWUqga2hVa84Z7xZJxyKk/et7L208/tV1S3cKtIRdB/6xSqQvdjnZJ8rT2J8Jd hdvQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaVfD0DD2HTi/1gcMupSBXuHQbt82ORi8CdQrDhXhmZ6eQM0BG8Z d28kepmjVNZJ3mxxN+PitFGSM9IlYYd12yfDze0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+QocIIVdgrvE4h82ZaUILgs6dqo3VXtBBpY8Ho51HGDXR/fDtNgaTJ/akm3TNPIqOnj5A60+T/beov/1EtuUv8=
X-Received: by with SMTP id x129mr13356198pfx.315.1508770114144; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 07:48:34 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 07:48:33 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
From: Vishnu Pavan Beeram <>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 10:48:33 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: "Dongjie (Jimmy)" <>
Cc: Loa Andersson <>, "" <>, "<>" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-sitaraman-mpls-rsvp-shared-labels
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 14:48:37 -0000

Jie, Hi!

Thanks for the review and for the support. Please see inline for
responses (prefixed VPB).


On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 11:18 AM, Dongjie (Jimmy) <> wrote:
> Hi Loa,
> I've read this document and think it provides a useful function for reducing the data plane state of RSVP-TE LSPs. Thus I support the adoption.
> I concur with Lou's concern about the TE bandwidth/tspec/rspec processing, the impact of shared label on this needs to be specified.

[VPB] Please see if my response to Lou adequately addresses your concern.

> I also have some concerns about the automatic delegation process described in section 5.3, maybe I need to reread it, but it seems that in some cases the mechanism may not result in an appropriate set of delegation nodes. And what would happen if the ETLD value in the received PATH message is bigger than the maximum number of labels this node can handle? It seems this case was not covered in section 5.3.

[VPB] Section 5.3.1 says --
"The ETLD MUST be decremented at each non-delegation transit hop by
either 1 or some appropriate number based on the limitations at that

The "limitations at that hop" reference is not necessarily limited to
the "outbound limitation", it could include the "read limitation" as
well. Consider a transit hop that can read only 6 labels. If this hop
receives an ETLD of 8 from the previous-hop, then it could adjust the
outgoing ETLD to 5 (thus ensuring that it can never receive more
label-stack-entries than it can read).

> It would be great if the above concerns could be considered either before or after the adoption.
> Best regards,
> Jie
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpls [] On Behalf Of Loa Andersson
> Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2017 11:20 PM
> To:
> Cc: <>;;
> Subject: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-sitaraman-mpls-rsvp-shared-labels
> Working Group,
> This is to start a two week poll on adopting
> draft-sitaraman-mpls-rsvp-shared-labels-02 as a MPLS working group document.
> Please send your comments (support/not support) to the mpls working group mailing list ( Please give a technical motivation for your support/not support, especially if you think that the document should not be adopted as a working group document.
> There are three IPR disclosures (though one disclosure seems to be an
> update) against this document.
> All the authors have stated on the MPLS wg mailing list that they are unaware of any other IPRs that those that has been disclosed
> The working group adoption poll ends October 29, 2017.
> /Loa
> mpls wg co-chair
> --
> Loa Andersson                        email:
> Senior MPLS Expert
> Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list