IETF Logo Mail Archive

[mpls] 答复: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation-06

Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com> Tue, 09 May 2017 02:42 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 134A1128D16; Mon, 8 May 2017 19:42:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.222
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.222 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 Ju2GqDbPYp1t; Mon, 8 May 2017 19:42:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E0F0D128BB6; Mon, 8 May 2017 19:42:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO LHREML711-CAH.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DMN25260; Tue, 09 May 2017 02:42:17 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from NKGEML414-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.75) by LHREML711-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.34) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Tue, 9 May 2017 03:42:16 +0100
Received: from NKGEML515-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.5.200]) by nkgeml414-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.75]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Tue, 9 May 2017 10:42:11 +0800
From: Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com>
To: Eric C Rosen <erosen@juniper.net>, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, "bier@ietf.org" <bier@ietf.org>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "mpls-chairs@ietf.org" <mpls-chairs@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation-06
Thread-Index: AQHSyBBH3GIfSKukREmdtlqFe0rBBKHrSRvg
Date: Tue, 09 May 2017 02:42:11 +0000
Message-ID: <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE2BB9C4CF@NKGEML515-MBS.china.huawei.com>
References: <CABFReBq1xG4+qjS5roHDSgBaSSMd6dDA0au_FgKCKm9a0pSvOA@mail.gmail.com> <ba9d5fb2-81ba-63d7-b814-c94d154402dc@gmail.com> <24a3794c-f195-a885-2049-cb1f56cfe9d0@juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <24a3794c-f195-a885-2049-cb1f56cfe9d0@juniper.net>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.184.181]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020202.59112C89.011F, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=169.254.5.200, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 7fe02638cd012b777989e3c040d2906d
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/mmMcmFywvo5j7Sq8qrz9NRg7i6o>
Subject: [mpls] 答复: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation-06
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Tue, 09 May 2017 02:42:22 -0000

> Originally the draft only discussed MPLS networks.  When a non-MPLS encaps
> was added, the title was augmented with "and non-MPLS networks".
> I don't really see a problem with it, as it emphasizes that two encapsulation
> mechanisms are provided.

Hi all,

I really don't think it's worthwhile to have two indirection approaches with little significant differences. IMHO, the only difference between the two approaches is whether the first 20-bit (i.e., the indirection key) is deeded as an MPLS label or not. Is that so important in nature?

Best regards,
Xiaohu

> Eric
> 
> _______________________________________________
> BIER mailing list
> BIER@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email