[mpls] Thoughts on Ancillary Data Indicators.
Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Thu, 08 July 2021 09:11 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 0F5FA3A189B; Thu, 8 Jul 2021 02:11:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, 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 ZHBVxGj7amRr; Thu, 8 Jul 2021 02:11:08 -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 756FD3A18CD; Thu, 8 Jul 2021 02:11:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.224] (90-231-104-158-no93.tbcn.telia.com [90.231.104.158]) (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 43FCB348D45; Thu, 8 Jul 2021 11:11:00 +0200 (CEST)
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
To: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Cc: "mpls-chairs@ietf.org" <mpls-chairs@ietf.org>, "pals-chairs@ietf.org" <pals-chairs@ietf.org>, DetNet Chairs <detnet-chairs@ietf.org>, "spring-chairs@ietf.org" <spring-chairs@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <2780a4de-a514-0ae0-bbe7-6c632aaf12e5@pi.nu>
Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2021 11:10:59 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/j2I4JkyJnDTJET3VB4Wjb34zYLw>
Subject: [mpls] Thoughts on Ancillary Data Indicators.
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: Thu, 08 Jul 2021 09:11:15 -0000
Design Team, We have discussed how to carry ancillary data in in an MPLS packet and how to include indicators on the presences of such data in the label stack since the design team started. I think we have some convergence and that it is time to float an idea that could be the basis for a consensus. Please note that the actual consensus call will be made on the mpls wg mailing list, while this is for discussion preparing such a consensus call in the design team. The proposals we have for indicators often rely on assignment of a base special purpose label. The number of such labels are limited. I think we can agree on the following: - We want to limit the number of new assignments of base special purpose labels as much as possible - We have a standardized associated channel, the GAL/GACH. We are not going to change the associated channel. The associated will remain as specified in RFC 5586. The ACH is found immediately after the label carrying the Bottom of Stack (BoS) bit. - We therefore need a (base) special purpose label to serve as the forwarding action indicator carrier. - It is attractive to "re-purpose" the ELI to also fill the role as a general (generic?) forwarding action indicator. This may be done by using the TTL and TC fields of the ELI as flags indicating which service is requested. However, in order to do this it must be shown that there is no potential interference between the normal service supplied by the ELI/EL and the services indicated by the flags. - If we can't demonstrate the non-interference then we should assign specific forwarding indicator action base special purpose label and leave the ELI/EL unchanged. - The flag field of the re-purposed ELI of the the specially assigned forwarding action indicator label must be made extendable. These labels "only" have 11 bits (8 bit TTL and 3 bit TC fields) that can be used as flags. Already in the very preliminary discussions we have had so far are almost using all the 11 bits, making the it necessary to make the indicator extendable. /Loa -- Loa Andersson email: loa@pi.nu Senior MPLS Expert loa.pi.nu@gmail.com Bronze Dragon Consulting phone: +46 739 81 21 64
- Re: [mpls] Thoughts on Ancillary Data Indicators. Kireeti Kompella
- [mpls] Thoughts on Ancillary Data Indicators. Loa Andersson
- Re: [mpls] Thoughts on Ancillary Data Indicators. Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [mpls] Thoughts on Ancillary Data Indicators. bruno.decraene
- Re: [mpls] Thoughts on Ancillary Data Indicators. John E Drake
- Re: [mpls] Thoughts on Ancillary Data Indicators. Haoyu Song
- Re: [mpls] Thoughts on Ancillary Data Indicators. Loa Andersson
- Re: [mpls] Thoughts on Ancillary Data Indicators. Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [mpls] Thoughts on Ancillary Data Indicators. Kireeti Kompella
- Re: [mpls] Thoughts on Ancillary Data Indicators. bruno.decraene
- Re: [mpls] Thoughts on Ancillary Data Indicators. Haoyu Song