Re: [mpls] new published draft-kompella-mpls-special-purpose-labels-01 (Adrian Farrel)

[John E Drake <[e-mail]>]

Vivek,

According to the Entropy Label draft, all special (nee reserved) labels are to be ignored when performing load balancing.  I think a statement to this effect should be included in this draft.

Yours irrespectively,

John


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
> Vivek Kumar
> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 6:11 AM
> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [mpls] new published draft-kompella-mpls-special-purpose-
> labels-01 (Adrian Farrel)
> 
> Hi Adrain,
>       Thanks for keeping us in job :)
>       Having extension approach is good idea but the recursive nature
> means more possibility which result in more work for SW/HW without any
> extra benefit. Less the possibilities more deterministic the behavior .
> 
>    Since the idea of the draft  is to expand reserved label space ,
> having only one extension label (15) will make things simpler.  The
> recursive label approach is not giving any additional information or
> scope but merely testing the system if it can handle Exten-label-
> >Exten-label-> Exten-label->Exten-label ->...
> 
> One more question, the new special action label range (16 - 1048559/75)
> need to be excluded or included when doing ECMP using MPLS labels as
> inputs (draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-label-06 ) ?
> 
> Regards,
> Vivek
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 6:11 PM
> To: Vivek Kumar; [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: [mpls] new published draft-kompella-mpls-special-purpose-
> labels-01 (Adrian Farrel)
> 
> Hello,
> 
> Well, we were looking for a format that would make things as hard as
> possible for the chip vendors :-)
> 
> We wanted labels 0-15 (i.e. what are now to be called the special
> labels) to preserve their meaning in the extended space.
> Thus 15->3 has the same meaning as 3.
> 
> We were not sure that this was important, but it seemed like the right
> thing to do.
> 
> That meant that 15->15 has the same meaning as 15.
> 
> And hence 15->15->3 has the same meaning as 3.
> 
> I would say that the authors were not strongly wedded to this. If there
> was group-think that the whole extended special label range (0-1048575)
> should be new, we could probably live with it.
> 
> Actually, a chip manufacturer could help here. Assuming that label 15
> means you throw the label and look at the next one, does it make things
> easier or harder to find a special label value (say 3) and have one or
> two ways of handling it depending on whether you have just found a
> label 15?
> 
> Cheers,
> Adrian
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
> > Of Vivek Kumar
> > Sent: 25 October 2012 06:36
> > To: [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [mpls] new published
> > draft-kompella-mpls-special-purpose-labels-
> > 01 (Adrian Farrel)
> >
> > Hi,
> >   Just curious on Section 3.1 statement  "  In particular, an
> > arbitrary string
> of
> > consecutive extension labels is  legal, and semantically equivalent
> to
> > a
> single
> > extension label (note  that this string of extension labels MUST be
> > followed
> by an
> > extended  special purpose label that is not the extension label).".
> >
> >  Does this mean it will allow recursive extension labels like
> Exten-label->Exten-
> > label->"Standard Action label"  ? Any special reason not to restrict
> > label->only one
> > extension label in MPLS header ?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Vivek
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 11:30:28 -0400
> > From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[e-mail]>
> > To: Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> > Subject: Re: [mpls] new published
> > 	draft-kompella-mpls-special-purpose-labels-01
> > Message-ID:
> > 	<CAA=duU33_Pc6dBuYd30MA4WXjwJBWCSyc2KDZnKdx-
> > [e-mail]>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> >
> > On the whole, it looks good. I'm curious who's going to have the
> > responsibility of running the process in section 3.2. IANA? (probably
> > not). The WG chairs?  What if there's no longer an MPLS working group
> > at some point? This should be clarified.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Andy
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 6:13 AM, Loa Andersson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > > Working Group,
> > >
> > > the decreasing number of "reserved labels" has been of concern for
> > > some time. draft-kompella-mpls-special-purpose-labels-01 proposes a
> > > way to increase the the number of special purpose labels.
> > >
> > > We propose to take the current label 15 and use it as an extension
> > > label, i.e. any label that follows label 15 should be interpreted
> as
> > > belonging to the new "extension registry" that we propose.
> > >
> > > We also propose changing the name of the special purpose labels
> from
> > > "reserved labels" to "special purpose labels"; the main reason here
> > > is that in the IANA registries "reserved" has an another meaning.
> > >
> > > Please review the draft and comment to the list.
> > >
> > > /Loa
> > > --
> > >
> > >
> > > Loa Andersson                         email:
> [e-mail]
> > > Sr Strategy and Standards Manager            [e-mail]
> > > Ericsson Inc                          phone: [phone]
> > >                                              [phone]
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > mpls mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 2
> > Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 17:43:48 +0200
> > From: Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>
> > To: "Andrew G. Malis" <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> > Subject: Re: [mpls] new published
> > 	draft-kompella-mpls-special-purpose-labels-01
> > Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> >
> > Andy,
> >
> > this is in the category "good questions", when Scott Bradner were our
> > AD he always said that there should be a "caretaker" appointed when a
> > wg is closed But I don't know if this has been done consistently.
> >
> > /Loa
> >
> > On 2012-10-24 17:30, Andrew G. Malis wrote:
> > > On the whole, it looks good. I'm curious who's going to have the
> > > responsibility of running the process in section 3.2. IANA?
> > > (probably not). The WG chairs?  What if there's no longer an MPLS
> > > working group at some point? This should be clarified.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Andy
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 6:13 AM, Loa Andersson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > >> Working Group,
> > >>
> > >> the decreasing number of "reserved labels" has been of concern for
> > >> some time. draft-kompella-mpls-special-purpose-labels-01 proposes
> a
> > >> way to increase the the number of special purpose labels.
> > >>
> > >> We propose to take the current label 15 and use it as an extension
> > >> label, i.e. any label that follows label 15 should be interpreted
> > >> as belonging to the new "extension registry" that we propose.
> > >>
> > >> We also propose changing the name of the special purpose labels
> > >> from "reserved labels" to "special purpose labels"; the main
> reason
> > >> here is that in the IANA registries "reserved" has an another
> meaning.
> > >>
> > >> Please review the draft and comment to the list.
> > >>
> > >> /Loa
> > >> --
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Loa Andersson                         email:
> [e-mail]
> > >> Sr Strategy and Standards Manager            [e-mail]
> > >> Ericsson Inc                          phone: [phone]
> > >>                                               [phone]
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> mpls mailing list
> > >> [e-mail]
> > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> > Loa Andersson                         email:
> [e-mail]
> > Sr Strategy and Standards Manager            [e-mail]
> > Ericsson Inc                          phone: [phone]
> >                                               [phone]
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 3
> > Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 18:08:31 +0100
> > From: "Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>
> > To: <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: [e-mail]
> > Subject: [mpls] AD review of draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping
> > Message-ID: <12d901cdb20a$320b7080$96225180$@olddog.co.uk>
> > Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"
> >
> > Thanks for this document. I have done my usual AD review and have
> > nothing to add except for some minor comments on the IANA section.
> > If you could make an update that would be very helpful.
> >
> > You do not need to wait for the submission gates to reopen on 5th
> > November. If you send me the file(s) for submission I will get the
> > Secretariat to post them.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Adrian
> >
> > ---
> >
> > Section 6
> >
> > It appears you are asking to *replace* the pointer to RFC 4379 for
> the
> > three IPv4 sub-TLVs. I don't think you should do that because they
> are
> > defined in 4379. So add the word "also".
> >
> > OLD
> >    Update the names of the Value fields of these three Sub-TLVs,
> adding
> >    the "IPv4" qualifier (see Section 2), and update the Reference to
> >    point to this document:
> > NEW
> >    Update the names of the Value fields of these three Sub-TLVs,
> adding
> >    the "IPv4" qualifier (see Section 2), and update the Reference to
> >    also point to this document:
> > END
> >
> > ---
> >
> > Section 6 usefully calls out TBD1 and TBD2, but the rest of the
> > document uniformly uses TBD. If you could update to always use TBD1
> > and TBD2 this will ensure that the RFC Editor works with IANA to get
> this right.
> >
> > ---
> >
> > In Section 6, please explicitly ask IANA to make the appropriate
> > entries in the Type 21 sub-TLVs list.
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 4
> > Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 18:39:04 +0100
> > From: "Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>
> > To: "'Andrew G. Malis'" <[e-mail]>, "'Loa Andersson'"
> > 	<[e-mail]>
> > Cc: [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [mpls] new	published
> > 	draft-kompella-mpls-special-purpose-labels-01
> > Message-ID: <12ed01cdb20e$76d46650$647d32f0$@olddog.co.uk>
> > Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"
> >
> > Hi Andy,
> >
> > Section 3.2 is about withdrawing reserved labels. I suspect that we
> > will all
> be
> > retired long before the MPLS WG closes down :-)
> >
> > However, bullet (a) of 3.2 says:
> >
> >        A label value that has been assigned from the "Special Purpose
> >        MPLS Label Values" may be deprecated by IETF consensus with
> >        review by the MPLS working group (or designated experts if the
> >        working group or a successor does not exist).
> >
> > So a designated expert (appointed by the IESG as with all designated
> > experts) will be required. If one has not been appointed at the time
> > of retirement of
> the
> > label, IANA would ask the IESG to appoint one. I think this would be
> > the same
> > expert(s) as for label allocation.
> >
> > The other steps in the process just ask for RFCs (i.e. publication
> > requests
> for
> > I-Ds) on specific tracks. I suppose that whoever wants to retire a
> > label will write the RFCs.
> >
> > Did we miss any other decision points?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Adrian
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> Behalf
> > > Of Andrew G. Malis
> > > Sent: 24 October 2012 16:30
> > > To: Loa Andersson
> > > Cc: [e-mail]
> > > Subject: Re: [mpls] new published
> draft-kompella-mpls-special-purpose-labels-
> > > 01
> > >
> > > On the whole, it looks good. I'm curious who's going to have the
> > > responsibility of running the process in section 3.2. IANA?
> > > (probably not). The WG chairs?  What if there's no longer an MPLS
> > > working group at some point? This should be clarified.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Andy
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 6:13 AM, Loa Andersson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > > > Working Group,
> > > >
> > > > the decreasing number of "reserved labels" has been of concern
> for
> > > > some time. draft-kompella-mpls-special-purpose-labels-01 proposes
> > > > a way to increase the the number of special purpose labels.
> > > >
> > > > We propose to take the current label 15 and use it as an
> extension
> > > > label, i.e. any label that follows label 15 should be interpreted
> > > > as belonging to the new "extension registry" that we propose.
> > > >
> > > > We also propose changing the name of the special purpose labels
> > > > from "reserved labels" to "special purpose labels"; the main
> > > > reason here is that in the IANA registries "reserved" has an
> another meaning.
> > > >
> > > > Please review the draft and comment to the list.
> > > >
> > > > /Loa
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Loa Andersson                         email:
> [e-mail]
> > > > Sr Strategy and Standards Manager            [e-mail]
> > > > Ericsson Inc                          phone: [phone]
> > > >                                              [phone]
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > mpls mailing list
> > > > [e-mail]
> > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > mpls mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > mpls mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> >
> >
> > End of mpls Digest, Vol 102, Issue 53
> > *************************************
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > mpls mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls