[mpls] Updates to draft-villamizar-mpls-tp-multipath drafts
Curtis Villamizar <curtis@occnc.com> Mon, 08 October 2012 22:20 UTC
Return-Path: <curtis@occnc.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 A373D11E80FE for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 15:20:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.392
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.392 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.208, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zII2+K4xXLXE for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 15:20:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gateway1.orleans.occnc.com (gateway1.orleans.occnc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1545::1:132]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9153411E80E3 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 15:20:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from harbor1.ipv6.occnc.com (harbor1.ipv6.occnc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1545::2:819]) (authenticated bits=0) by gateway1.orleans.occnc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q98MKZTK035537; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 18:20:36 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from curtis@occnc.com)
Message-Id: <201210082220.q98MKZTK035537@gateway1.orleans.occnc.com>
To: mpls@ietf.org
From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@occnc.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2012 18:20:35 -0400
Subject: [mpls] Updates to draft-villamizar-mpls-tp-multipath drafts
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: curtis@occnc.com
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 08 Oct 2012 22:20:45 -0000
Please take a look at the draft-villamizar-mpls-tp-multipath drafts. There are two and they are both recently revised. The changes are substantial. Essentially, Entropy Label is downselected as the best way to support LSP with strict packet ordering requirements (which includes MPLS-TP LSP) over MPLS LSP that make use of multipath links. draft-villamizar-mpls-tp-multipath-03 shrunk from 25 pages to 9 pages for the following reasons: 1. It mainly makes a few simple points: a. MPLS-TP in MPLS and MPLS in MPLS-TP are called for as requirements in RFC 5654 requirement 33. b. Entropy Label provides a means of carrying MPLS-TP client LSP within a MPLS server layer LSP and offering a fully MPLS-TP compliant server layer. c. MPLS client LSP can be carried within MPLS-TP server layer LSP with limitations described in the draft. 2. Lengthy statement of multipath requirements are no longer necessary if we accept that Entropy Label does something useful and therefore needed to become and RFC. Large sections were removed from the draft. 3. Lengthy discussion of requirements tradeoffs and scalability considerations were removed from the draft. 4. Discussion of alternatives was removed from the draft. Only using Entropy Label to carry MPLS-TP client LSP within a MPLS server layer LSP is considered. Therefore draft-villamizar-mpls-tp-multipath-03 is now a short read and should be non-controversial (I hope). There is some mention in draft-villamizar-mpls-tp-multipath-03 of limitations in the absense of any protocol extensions. The update to draft-villamizar-mpls-tp-multipath-te-extn reflects the use of ELI and EL and the elimination of some alternatives and is simplified as a result. The purpose of the extensions is to determine at CSPF time where in the topology limitations exist (such as legacy multipath with no EL support - LAG for example) and figuring out when large microflows are going to be a problem. The Infinera IPR statement no longer applies since Entropy Label is being used rather than the forwarding change that I had proposed while at Infinera. There is no way to completely remove an IPR statement so I will rename the drafts after the IETF meeting. I would like the WG to be aware of the change and why the IPR no longer applies. I have made a request to make a presentation about the changes at the Atlanta IETF. I would like the work group, after the IETF meeting, to consider at least draft-villamizar-mpls-tp-multipath-03 as a WG document and preferabley both. Prior to the upcoming IETF meeting, discussion on the WG list (preferred) or private email would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Curtis ------- Forwarded Messages From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: curtis@occnc.com Subject: New Version Notification for draft-villamizar-mpls-tp-multipath-03.txt A new version of I-D, draft-villamizar-mpls-tp-multipath-03.txt has been successfully submitted by Curtis Villamizar and posted to the IETF repository. Filename: draft-villamizar-mpls-tp-multipath Revision: 03 Title: Use of Multipath with MPLS-TP and MPLS Creation date: 2012-10-02 WG ID: Individual Submission Number of pages: 9 URL: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-villamizar-mpls-tp-multipath-03.txt Status: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-villamizar-mpls-tp-multipath Htmlized: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-villamizar-mpls-tp-multipath-03 Diff: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-villamizar-mpls-tp-multipath-03 Abstract: Many MPLS implementations have supported multipath techniques and many MPLS deployments have used multipath techniques, particularly in very high bandwidth applications, such as provider IP/MPLS core networks. MPLS-TP has strongly discouraged the use of multipath techniques. Some degradation of MPLS-TP OAM performance cannot be avoided when operating over many types of multipath implementations. Using MPLS Entropy label, MPLS can LSP can be carried over multipath links while also providing a fully MPLS-TP compliant server layer for MPLS-TP LSP. This document describes the means of supporting MPLS as a server layer for MPLS-TP. The use of MPLS-TP LSP as a server layer for MPLS LSP is also discussed. The IETF Secretariat ------- Message 2 From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: curtis@occnc.com Subject: New Version Notification for draft-villamizar-mpls-tp-multipath-te-extn-02.txt A new version of I-D, draft-villamizar-mpls-tp-multipath-te-extn-02.txt has been successfully submitted by Curtis Villamizar and posted to the IETF repository. Filename: draft-villamizar-mpls-tp-multipath-te-extn Revision: 02 Title: Multipath Extensions for MPLS Traffic Engineering Creation date: 2012-10-07 WG ID: Individual Submission Number of pages: 30 URL: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-villamizar-mpls-tp-multipath-te-extn-02.txt Status: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-villamizar-mpls-tp-multipath-te-extn Htmlized: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-villamizar-mpls-tp-multipath-te-extn-02 Diff: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-villamizar-mpls-tp-multipath-te-extn-02 Abstract: Extensions to OSPF-TE, ISIS-TE, and RSVP-TE are defined in support of carrying LSP with strict packet ordering requirements over multipath and and carrying LSP with strict packet ordering requirements within LSP without violating requirements to maintain packet ordering. LSP with strict packet ordering requirements include MPLS-TP LSP. OSPF-TE and ISIS-TE extensions defined here indicate node and link capability regarding support for ordered aggregates of traffic, multipath traffic distribution, and abilities to support multipath load distribution differently per LSP. RSVP-TE extensions either identifies an LSP as requiring strict packet order, or identifies an LSP as carrying one or more LSP that requires strict packet order further down in the label stack, or identifies an LSP as having no restrictions on packet ordering except the restriction to avoid reordering microflows. In addition an extension indicates whether the first nibble of payload will reliably indicate whether payload is IPv4, IPv6, or other type of payload, most notably pseudowire using a pseudowire control word. The IETF Secretariat ------- End of Forwarded Messages
- [mpls] Updates to draft-villamizar-mpls-tp-multip… Curtis Villamizar