Re: [mpls] FW: New Version Notification for draft-keten-mpls-expbit-00.txt

[Umut Keten <[e-mail]>]

Hello Adrian,

Thanks for your reply. I will answer your question regarding compatability after asking a question first. What is your opinion on the huge TTL and couldn't it be better used as QoS?

Regarding your question new/old format.
My expectation is the following and correct me if I am wrong:  I do not expect an MPLS network to be half upgraded with new format router.
However the backwards compatability part has been misunderstood by me, Deborah asked me to add a section for that and honestly I did that expecting it meant "can you roll back to the old"

My mistake and sorry for the misunderstanding. I will update that accordingly ASAP.

All your suppose questions are valid, if an old format and new format would have different values in different sequences they would act upon it, ie if it receives an S bit it would handle it as such.

Your last question however regarding if the 255 is ever set for special reasons? I have no clue! Even so if it is ever set for some special occasion the more QoS possibilities surely should outweigh that.

Even now we are juggling with stuff like pre-classify, if we had more QoS we wouldn't have to. LTE backhaul i get 9 QoS and even that pains me.

I think the TTL field is too long, it can be of much better use as QoS.

Thank you again for your feedback Adrian, I truly appreciate it.

Regards,
Umut




-------- Orijinal mesaj --------
Başlangıç tarihi: Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>
Tarih: 14 09 2016 00:21 (GMT+02:00)
Alıcı: Umut Keten <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
Konu: RE: [mpls] FW: New Version Notification for draft-keten-mpls-expbit-00.txt

Hi Umut,

I'm interested that you write
   No issues are expected regarding backwards compatability as the
   sequence of the header remains unchanged.

Suppose that an old format packet reaches a new format router.
Suppose that the TTL on the old format packet is set to 192.
Won't the new format router decide that the TTL is zero?

Suppose that an old format packet has TTL of 193. Won't the new format router decide the S bit is set?

I suspect the first thing you need to do is not determine what the largest diameter of an MPLS network is, but what implementations in the field do with the field when initiating packets. For example, are their special cases where TTL is set to 255?

Cheers,
Adrian


From: mpls [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Umut Keten
Sent: 13 September 2016 18:45
To: [e-mail]
Subject: [mpls] FW: New Version Notification for draft-keten-mpls-expbit-00.txt

Dear Members,

Hereby I would like you to take a look at my recently/newly posted draft:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-keten-mpls-expbit-00

I sincerely belief that this fundamental change is required. Feedback/Interest/Advise is appreciated.

Kind Regards,
Umut




[tt_logo_]


Umut Keten



Ürün ve Servis Kıdemli Mimarı
Ürün ve Servis Sunumu Direktörlüğü
Teknoloji Genel Müdür Yardımcılığı



[e-mail]



03125551931

[phone]




[cid:image002.png@01D20E0D.173C30B0]<http://www.4nokta5g.com/>


Yasal Uyarı :
Bu elektronik posta işbu linki kullanarak ulaşabileceğiniz Koşul ve Şartlar dökümanına tabidir :
www.turktelekom.com.tr/tt/portal/email-yasal-uyari<http://www.turktelekom.com.tr/tt/portal/email-yasal-uyari>
-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 8:39 PM
To: Umut Keten <[e-mail]>
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-keten-mpls-expbit-00.txt


A new version of I-D, draft-keten-mpls-expbit-00.txt has been successfully submitted by Umut Keten and posted to the IETF repository.

Name:           draft-keten-mpls-expbit
Revision:       00
Title:          MPLS EXP/TC BIT EXPANSION
Document date:  2016-09-13
Group:          Individual Submission
Pages:          6
URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-keten-mpls-expbit-00.txt
Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-keten-mpls-expbit/
Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-keten-mpls-expbit-00


Abstract:
  This document specifies the new label/header architecture for a new
  Multiprotocol Label Switching and proposes a new Label Standard.
  With this new architecture the aim is to provide more QoS options.




Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

The IETF Secretariat