IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com> Thu, 09 June 2022 12:08 UTC

Return-Path: <mach.chen@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 1A4CDC15AE21; Thu, 9 Jun 2022 05:08:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 R-1fVAHYUWtg; Thu, 9 Jun 2022 05:08:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C6920C15AAFB; Thu, 9 Jun 2022 05:08:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fraeml709-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.206]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4LJjT4048fz684R2; Thu, 9 Jun 2022 20:04:56 +0800 (CST)
Received: from dggpemm100002.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.179) by fraeml709-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.37) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2375.24; Thu, 9 Jun 2022 14:08:29 +0200
Received: from dggpemm500002.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.229) by dggpemm100002.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.179) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2375.24; Thu, 9 Jun 2022 20:08:27 +0800
Received: from dggpemm500002.china.huawei.com ([7.185.36.229]) by dggpemm500002.china.huawei.com ([7.185.36.229]) with mapi id 15.01.2375.024; Thu, 9 Jun 2022 20:08:27 +0800
From: Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>
To: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>, "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>
Thread-Topic: Poll 2: New SPL vs re-purposed ELI for carrying Network Action Indicators
Thread-Index: AQHYdGtRcXC3Rk3PR0yTCCgTbwAW161HCcXQ
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2022 12:08:27 +0000
Message-ID: <ee206903dbd34b8199fcc1e8b179c7b2@huawei.com>
References: <6e5c6fa9-539f-80c3-7c92-5b97ad67560c@pi.nu>
In-Reply-To: <6e5c6fa9-539f-80c3-7c92-5b97ad67560c@pi.nu>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.110.46.250]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/k_pTR8txkDnzfVEKBR8xCiPJsQE>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Poll 2: New SPL vs re-purposed ELI for carrying Network Action Indicators
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 09 Jun 2022 12:08:37 -0000

Hi Loa,

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

I would support this option.

Best regards,
Mach

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2022 5:22 AM
> To: mpls@ietf.org
> Cc: mpls-chairs@ietf.org; pals-chairs@ietf.org; DetNet Chairs
> <detnet-chairs@ietf.org>
> Subject: Poll 2: New SPL vs re-purposed ELI for carrying Network Action
> Indicators
> 
> 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