IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mpls] MPLS label and LSE data models

Xufeng Liu <Xufeng_Liu@jabil.com> Tue, 06 June 2017 15:06 UTC

Return-Path: <Xufeng_Liu@jabil.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 433AF12946C; Tue, 6 Jun 2017 08:06:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.921
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.921 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=jabil.onmicrosoft.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 GHG4OMlsay_C; Tue, 6 Jun 2017 08:05:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from NAM01-BY2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-by2nam01on0137.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.34.137]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A139312871F; Tue, 6 Jun 2017 08:05:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jabil.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-jabil-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=yLXL12Lj40X5HUEoASIh7SQkQhC/loOZGJdD9w4JQQc=; b=molwJW3CuUMpOo9XuONGEX4evB/j5f9AK4Xec5RPWb/lUUEwr+5X/4cLqLbG3yKj2Fp66CS0JINB3thzPu9qiYOE2/5HHZEOT7bZbV5MTYHaj8EAnGnwsWll4zJ72bseel+5MKrQLDSA9zpvBtAyKz07AFQVItTI964eRiVWo4U=
Received: from BN3PR0201MB0867.namprd02.prod.outlook.com (10.160.154.13) by BN3PR0201MB0868.namprd02.prod.outlook.com (10.160.154.139) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1157.12; Tue, 6 Jun 2017 15:05:57 +0000
Received: from BN3PR0201MB0867.namprd02.prod.outlook.com ([10.160.154.13]) by BN3PR0201MB0867.namprd02.prod.outlook.com ([10.160.154.13]) with mapi id 15.01.1143.019; Tue, 6 Jun 2017 15:05:57 +0000
From: Xufeng Liu <Xufeng_Liu@jabil.com>
To: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
CC: "draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-mpls-static-yang@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mpls-static-yang@ietf.org>, "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: MPLS label and LSE data models
Thread-Index: AQHS3ksFqqRkmLzX6Uy60rxp1VrMZKIW8faAgAANVICAAOdm8A==
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2017 15:05:57 +0000
Message-ID: <BN3PR0201MB08676A90584EC7E8414244B3F1CB0@BN3PR0201MB0867.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CA+RyBmVH=KCi3T8u2dB_WaKBOLheYwT4q0d+tpYdT-Z2iTZ+og@mail.gmail.com> <D55B6659.B21B8%acee@cisco.com> <CA+RyBmVyHKGhxitGgQ6RRMmHKwvs=b_GkKMq80rE=Ys8WetGaQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+RyBmVyHKGhxitGgQ6RRMmHKwvs=b_GkKMq80rE=Ys8WetGaQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-dg-ref: PG1ldGE+PGF0IG5tPSJib2R5Lmh0bWwiIHA9ImM6XHVzZXJzXHhsaXVcYXBwZGF0YVxyb2FtaW5nXDA5ZDg0OWI2LTMyZDMtNGE0MC04NWVlLTZiODRiYTI5ZTM1Ylxtc2dzXG1zZy1hMDc1N2NlYy00YWM5LTExZTctOWMxMy0xODVlMGZlM2M0NWNcYW1lLXRlc3RcYTA3NTdjZWQtNGFjOS0xMWU3LTljMTMtMTg1ZTBmZTNjNDVjYm9keS5odG1sIiBzej0iMTYxNDYiIHQ9IjEzMTQxMjM1MTU0NDYxMDg0NyIgaD0idGJjYzRWS1pUVFZLRzZ2YWN1MTY3TUcrQS9FPSIgaWQ9IiIgYmw9IjAiIGJvPSIxIi8+PC9tZXRhPg==
authentication-results: gmail.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;gmail.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=jabil.com;
x-originating-ip: [98.191.72.170]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BN3PR0201MB0868; 7:gwCOGzXST7dTi607pD+tKVWZ9nUh9pPwjR9cNwoj9g6rPA6xwYWoYOX/BOdJ1Xi2q/LafLSZW7Ypja1fbJRRa7tKNAUzZmlPWEYcBCitVu9fe8AorGMcaiNv0bi/QdMx1rVJLW1Z2ByfKZtGXYXrhhLAXIq5tUZyw+vPQE0vgRee37zZXn0zR3m0ku6/2ZsF3ursJN54bVKRUwSGvJiIx6Nm6ySDb9aKOp84qHkRS7U+KUuf3VR6loXlL8DPqWRxJ3jrN5xjDa/YkkcCEKuV2wwL5Y4kN29zM5krnHJ632+m1XmlB/ovuQqr5mokV8Eu741Tt0mAacmgUB223qOTaA==
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BN3PR0201MB0868:
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 115b90b5-96fc-4544-1cb1-08d4aced896b
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(22001)(2017030254075)(48565401081)(201703131423075)(201703031133081); SRVR:BN3PR0201MB0868;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BN3PR0201MB0868A7DB6710379DFEA356D7F1CB0@BN3PR0201MB0868.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(50582790962513)(95692535739014)(21748063052155)(21534305686606);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(100000700101)(100105000095)(100000701101)(100105300095)(100000702101)(100105100095)(6040450)(601004)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(10201501046)(3002001)(100000703101)(100105400095)(93006095)(93001095)(6055026)(6041248)(201703131423075)(201702281528075)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123555025)(20161123564025)(20161123562025)(20161123560025)(20161123558100)(6072148)(100000704101)(100105200095)(100000705101)(100105500095); SRVR:BN3PR0201MB0868; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(100000800101)(100110000095)(100000801101)(100110300095)(100000802101)(100110100095)(100000803101)(100110400095)(100000804101)(100110200095)(100000805101)(100110500095); SRVR:BN3PR0201MB0868;
x-forefront-prvs: 033054F29A
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(39850400002)(39400400002)(39410400002)(39840400002)(39450400003)(39860400002)(24454002)(377454003)(3660700001)(3280700002)(6116002)(790700001)(7906003)(3846002)(66066001)(77096006)(102836003)(7736002)(19609705001)(7696004)(14454004)(122556002)(5660300001)(478600001)(72206003)(2950100002)(50986999)(33656002)(81166006)(8936002)(189998001)(8676002)(9326002)(53546009)(25786009)(74316002)(2906002)(4326008)(39060400002)(86362001)(229853002)(54356999)(76176999)(561944003)(54896002)(53936002)(9686003)(606005)(6436002)(6306002)(99286003)(53386004)(38730400002)(236005)(54906002)(6246003)(2900100001)(55016002)(80792005)(6506006)(170073001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BN3PR0201MB0868; H:BN3PR0201MB0867.namprd02.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:ovrnspm; PTR:InfoNoRecords; LANG:en;
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BN3PR0201MB08676A90584EC7E8414244B3F1CB0BN3PR0201MB0867_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: jabil.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 06 Jun 2017 15:05:57.5994 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bc876b21-f134-4c12-a265-8ed26b7f0f3b
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN3PR0201MB0868
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/iEycjJIHVoICpJ2F5TZ09LwEAGo>
Subject: Re: [mpls] MPLS label and LSE data models
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Tue, 06 Jun 2017 15:06:03 -0000

Hi Greg,


  1.  As you mentioned, grouping mpls-label-stack is defined in routing-types, so MPLS LSE is covered, right?
  2.  Bottom-of-the-stack flag should not be needed in the model,  because the label stack is a list with sequence ID’s, which tell us the beginning and the end of the stack.
  3.  The discussion on static MPLS LSP has started, but not converged yet. There are still open issues w.r.t. how to model the label stack and stack operations. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Do you have a proposal?
Thanks,
- Xufeng

From: Greg Mirsky [mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 5, 2017 8:44 PM
To: Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com>
Cc: draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types@ietf.org; draft-ietf-mpls-static-yang@ietf.org; rtgwg@ietf.org; mpls@ietf.org
Subject: Re: MPLS label and LSE data models

Hi Acee,
I think rather of the contrary, Static MPLS LSP must include TC and TTL. And Bottom-of-the-stack flag as well (I don't see it in grouping mpls-label-stack of the ietf-routing-types).

Regards,
Greg

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 4:55 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com<mailto:acee@cisco.com>> wrote:
Greg, et al,

From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com<mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>>
Date: Monday, June 5, 2017 at 6:28 PM
To: "draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types@ietf.org>" <draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types@ietf.org>>, "draft-ietf-mpls-static-yang@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-mpls-static-yang@ietf.org>" <draft-ietf-mpls-static-yang@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-mpls-static-yang@ietf.org>>
Cc: Routing WG <rtgwg@ietf.org<mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>>, "mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org>" <mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org>>
Subject: MPLS label and LSE data models
Resent-From: <alias-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:alias-bounces@ietf.org>>
Resent-To: Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.qu@huawei.com<mailto:yingzhen.qu@huawei.com>>, <xufeng_liu@jabil.com<mailto:xufeng_liu@jabil.com>>, Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com<mailto:acee@cisco.com>>, Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org<mailto:chopps@chopps.org>>, <lberger@labn.net<mailto:lberger@labn.net>>
Resent-Date: Monday, June 5, 2017 at 6:28 PM

Dear Authors, et.al<http://et.al>,
I've got a question, or several of them, about data models of MPLS label and MPLS label stack element (LSE). I ahve not followed the discussions and apologize if these already were considered, discussed.
In the Routing Types document I've found that only MPLS label being modeled but not the MPLS LSE. As result, models that use rt-types:mpls-label, e.g. YANG DAta Model for MPLS Static LSPs, defines outgoing labels not as array of LSEs but as array (leaf-list) of MPLS labels. In the latter document I don't see how TTL and Traffic Class (TC) are presented for each of labels in the array. Hence my questions:

  *   should there be data model of MPLS LSE in rt-types (it does have TTL and TC but separately);

  *   should data model of Static MPLS LSP use MPLS LSE model rather than model of only 20 bit-long label.
Where else so you see  a requirement for a label stack with entries that don’t contain TC and TTL? This seems specific to static provisioning of static LSPs rather than a general requirement for ietf-routing-types.

Thanks,
Acee


Appreciate you comments.

Regards,
Greg

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email