IETF Logo Mail Archive

[mpls] Poll 2: New SPL vs re-purposed ELI for carrying Network Action Indicators

Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Mon, 30 May 2022 21:21 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 3E5F9C16563C; Mon, 30 May 2022 14:21:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.907
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pz0PrzcjXQo8; Mon, 30 May 2022 14:21:43 -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 04A0FC16560D; Mon, 30 May 2022 14:21:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.241] (c-8807e353.020-236-73746f24.bbcust.telenor.se [83.227.7.136]) (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 367B5367752; Mon, 30 May 2022 23:21:41 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <6e5c6fa9-539f-80c3-7c92-5b97ad67560c@pi.nu>
Date: Mon, 30 May 2022 23:21:39 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.1
Content-Language: en-CA
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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/j8bPoLYKOITB6VCZTo-VP9KqrqQ>
Subject: [mpls] Poll 2: New SPL vs re-purposed ELI for carrying Network Action Indicators
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34
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: Mon, 30 May 2022 21:21:45 -0000

MPLS Working Group, MPLS Open DT,

The MPLS Network Actions (MNA) framework requires a method of indicating 
the presence of a Network Action and any Ancillary Data.

Is the consensus of the working group that we do this by:

   (1) allocating a new SPL for Network Action Indicators?

   (2) re-purposing the ELI SPL?

   (3) using some other method of indicating this such as making it an
       additional property of an ordinary label?

Please respond to the MPLS WG mail list.

Loa Andersson
for the Open DT wg chairs

-- 
Loa Andersson                        email: loa@pi.nu
Senior MPLS Expert                          loa.pi.nu@gmail.com
Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: +46 739 81 21 64

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email