Re: [mpls] poll to see if we have support to make draft-xu-mpls-in-udp an mpls working group document

Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com> Wed, 19 December 2012 06:50 UTC

Return-Path: <xuxiaohu@huawei.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 663B321F859D for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 22:50:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.432
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.432 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.975, BAYES_00=-2.599, CN_BODY_35=0.339, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 h4G0TqoDMiY7 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 22:50:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0637D21F8597 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 22:50:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id AMQ12312; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 06:50:19 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LHREML404-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.218) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 06:50:07 +0000
Received: from SZXEML410-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.137) by lhreml404-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.218) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 14:50:16 +0800
Received: from SZXEML525-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.152]) by szxeml410-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.137]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 14:50:13 +0800
From: Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com>
To: Shane Amante <shane@castlepoint.net>, "Rogers, Josh" <josh.rogers@twcable.com>
Thread-Topic: [mpls] poll to see if we have support to make draft-xu-mpls-in-udp an mpls working group document
Thread-Index: AQHN3Olzo1M6JwDPXkycxIud0O1KBJgeLvSAgADLHACAAKzhwA==
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 06:50:13 +0000
Message-ID: <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE075891EB@szxeml525-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <CCF5EC8E.2A183%josh.rogers@twcable.com> <E4CD1048-4DB1-4F78-880B-9E62626E370A@castlepoint.net>
In-Reply-To: <E4CD1048-4DB1-4F78-880B-9E62626E370A@castlepoint.net>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.98.130]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Cc: "draft-xu-mpls-in-udp@tools.ietf.org" <draft-xu-mpls-in-udp@tools.ietf.org>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] poll to see if we have support to make draft-xu-mpls-in-udp an mpls working group document
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <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: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 06:50:25 -0000

> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Shane Amante [mailto:shane@castlepoint.net]
> 发送时间: 2012年12月19日 11:58
> 收件人: Rogers, Josh
> 抄送: Shahram Davari; Xuxiaohu; draft-xu-mpls-in-udp@tools.ietf.org;
> mpls@ietf.org; mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org
> 主题: Re: [mpls] poll to see if we have support to make draft-xu-mpls-in-udp an
> mpls working group document
> 
> 
> On Dec 18, 2012, at 8:50 AM, "Rogers, Josh" <josh.rogers@twcable.com>
> wrote:
> > I share your SP perspective, and do not see the problem this solution
> > addresses in practice any longer.
> 
> +1.  Please do not define yet another MPLS-over-IP encapsulation.  The IETF
> already standardized MPLS over GRE.  The IETF has also standardized MPLS
> over L2TPv3/UDP/IP, which had seen some deployment in at least one, very
> large operator network that I'm aware of to support carriage of L3VPN over an
> IP-only network.

Hi Shane,

Thank you for telling us there are actual deployments of MPLS over IP in at least one, very large operator network. This fact must be very valuable to those people who had believed there is no application of MPLS over IP in today's SP networks.

> See: RFC's 4454, 4719, 4591, 4349 for PWE3 over L2TPv3
> [NOTE: the dates the above were published was back in the 2006 timeframe!]
>      RFC 4665 for requirements related to VPLS that say that VPLS may be
> carried over L2TPv3
>      And, here's evidence showing that at least one vendor has implemented
> IPVPN's over L2TPv3:
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/12_0s/feature/guide/csgl3vpn.html

Thanks again for sharing the above information. As mentioned in this draft AND other drafts, the mechanism of performing hash calculation on the Session ID field in the L2TPv3 header or the Key field in the GRE header as defined in [RFC 5640] is not widely supported by existing core routers so far. In contrast, most existing core routers are already capable of balancing IP traffic flows based on the hash of the five-tuple of UDP packets. By using the MPLS-in-UDP encapsulation, the already available load-balancing capability of most existing core routers can be leveraged without requiring any change to them. That is the major motivation of this draft.

Best regards,
Xiaohu

> If there was market demand for MPLS over IP, then clearly it would have been
> more widely implemented by equipment vendors, with either MPLS over GRE or
> MPLS over L2TPv3.  (Where there's a will, there's a way).  I would note that
> the most likely reasons this did not pan out was there are several, practical
> operational benefits one gets from going with native MPLS
> encapsulation/switching within the data plane, namely:
> - MPLS Fast Re-Route
> - MPLS Traffic Engineering
> ... to name, but a few.  Those have tended to be quite compelling arguments
> to 'upgrade' network HW to support MPLS encapsulation/switching.
> 
> -shane
> 
> 
> > -Josh
> >
> >
> > On 12/18/12 12:31 AM, "Shahram Davari" <davari@broadcom.com> wrote:
> >
> >> For service provider domain, MPLS over IP is legacy and there is no need
> >> to improve it.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Shahram
> >>
> >>
> >> On Dec 17, 2012, at 8:02 PM, "Xuxiaohu" <xuxiaohu@huawei.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Shahram,
> >>>
> >>> This draft is ONLY intended to provide a MPLS-over-IP encapsulation
> >>> method with a better load-balancing applicability so far to those
> >>> operators who happen to require transporting MPLS application traffic
> >>> across IP networks. I believe MPLS-based VPN over IP, NVGRE and VXLAN
> >>> each have their own advocators and use cases. If you absolutely believe
> >>> it's meaningless of transporting MPLS application traffic across IP
> >>> networks and therefore those existing RFCs related to MPLS over IP
> >>> tunneling mechanisms should be moved to Historic status, please say so.
> >>>
> >>> By the way, it seems this
> >>> (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nvo3/current/msg01864.html) is
> >>> just the right thread suitable for you to make the following argument
> >>> (i.e., whether or not MPLS-based VPN is applicable to data centers). I
> >>> had thought you would speak up at that time. Sadly, surprisingly silent
> >>> till now.
> >>>
> >>> Sigh, I didn't intend to say the above otherwise.
> >>>
> >>> Xiaohu
> >>>
> >>>> -----邮件原件-----
> >>>> 发件人: mpls-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] 代表
> S.
> >>>> Davari
> >>>> 发送时间: 2012年12月15日 13:34
> >>>> 收件人: Loa Andersson
> >>>> 抄送: draft-xu-mpls-in-udp@tools.ietf.org; mpls@ietf.org;
> >>>> mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org
> >>>> 主题: Re: [mpls] poll to see if we have support to make
> >>>> draft-xu-mpls-in-udp an
> >>>> mpls working group document
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't support this draft since it has no application in today's
> >>>> modern metro
> >>>> and core, where MPLS is dominant, and its only practical application
> >>>> in in data
> >>>> center, which already is crowded with other solutions such as NVGRE and
> >>>> VXLAN.
> >>>>
> >>>> It seems the authors are trying to bypass the NVO3 solution selection
> >>>> process
> >>>> by advancing the draft in MPLS WG.
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards,
> >>>> Shahram
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Dec 14, 2012, at 1:01 AM, Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Working group,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This is to start a "two week" poll on adopting
> >>>>> draft-xu-mpls-in-udp-06 as an MPLS working group document.
> >>>>> Due to the holiday season this poll has been extended with one week.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Please send your comments (support/not support) to the mpls working
> >>>>> group mailing list (mpls at ietf.org) Please give an technical
> >>>>> motivation for your support/not support, especially if you think that
> >>>>> the document should not be adopted as a working group document.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This poll ends January 07, 2013.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There is one IPR claim against this document -
> >>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1941/ .
> >>>>>
> >>>>> All the active co-authors has stated on the working group mailing list
> >>>>> that they are not aware of any other IPR claims than those already
> >>>>> disclosed.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> However, up to version -03 (the document that we used for the IPR
> >>>>> poll)
> >>>>> Marshall Eubanks was listed as one of the authors. Marshall has
> >>>>> discontinued all interactions with the IETF, including the author team
> >>>>> of draft-xu-mpls-in-udp-06. The working group chairs has tried to
> >>>>> contact Marshall by other means, to try get a response on the IPR
> >>>>> poll.
> >>>>> We have had no success in this.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> From version -04 the authors decided to remove Marshall as a
> >>>>> co-author.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> /Loa
> >>>>> (mpls wg co-chair)
> >>>>> --
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Loa Andersson                         email:
> >>>> loa.andersson@ericsson.com
> >>>>> Sr Strategy and Standards Manager            loa@pi.nu
> >>>>> Ericsson Inc                          phone: +46 10 717 52 13
> >>>>>                                           +46 767 72 92 13
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> mpls mailing list
> >>>>> mpls@ietf.org
> >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> mpls mailing list
> >>>> mpls@ietf.org
> >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> mpls mailing list
> >>> mpls@ietf.org
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> mpls mailing list
> >> mpls@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> >
> >
> > This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable
> proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to
> copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the
> use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the
> intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
> distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and
> attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you
> have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and
> permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.
> > _______________________________________________
> > mpls mailing list
> > mpls@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>