IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mpls] Comments on draft-kompella-larp

Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com> Thu, 06 March 2014 09:16 UTC

Return-Path: <stbryant@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9ABE1A0184 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 01:16:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.048
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.048 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 WzWYNzwW0WH1 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 01:16:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (aer-iport-3.cisco.com [173.38.203.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B37081A0170 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 01:16:41 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2185; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1394097398; x=1395306998; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=b7lNQ0OuJda6EjG64hlLIOVKphIVXFT4SAZ6sxKal3c=; b=ah5YMdJoaWYFLzukNpq8ijduZFJebZs895BSomUKWpfQhqoKXgDmxnqE Z0yE9DNBdoLub3/sZshpDldTgP4RBLzrzeBFFYRJuQJZaTBrgr6SLYz37 k1nh+xgAfR0g3w3L8VWEaBBR3uJvN+1+pa7O4qvRoRcAS1iuVUXLgki4j Y=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgMFAKE8GFOQ/khR/2dsb2JhbABagwY7wXOBGxZ0giUBAQEEAQEBNTYKARALGAkWDwkDAgECARUwBg0BBQIBAReHXg2zd5sTF45RB4Q4BJg9kiuDLQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,598,1389744000"; d="scan'208";a="2656603"
Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com ([144.254.72.81]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 06 Mar 2014 09:16:23 +0000
Received: from cisco.com (mrwint.cisco.com [64.103.70.36]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s269GML3025939 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 6 Mar 2014 09:16:23 GMT
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cisco.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id s269GLYR015983; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 09:16:21 GMT
Message-ID: <53183CE5.4090102@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 09:16:21 +0000
From: Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>
References: <53183B84.8070100@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <53183B84.8070100@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/nlLq-vwhueQwO534Ud4W0RdzS0U
Cc: Dan Frost <frost@mm.st>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Comments on draft-kompella-larp
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: stbryant@cisco.com
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: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 09:16:44 -0000

Resending adding Matthew to the CC list.

On 06/03/2014 09:10, Stewart Bryant wrote:
> Kireeti,
>
> This is an interesting problem and we are pleased that you
> have brought discussion of this topic to the IETF MPLS WG.
> The proposal on the table however is a point solution and
> it may be worth considering the wider problem of host
> to network  MPLS interfaces (UNIs).
>
> In particular whilst the majority of traffic is IPv4 today, the
> stated policy of the IETF is to recognize the need to deliver IPv6
> solutions and thus not to design IPv4 only solutions.
>
> Whilst it is true that everyone does ARP, and ARP can in
> principle be extended, the reality of the situation is that
> the majority of ARP implementations are optimized IPv4
> specific, and thus in most cases extending ARP would
> require a similar effort to deploying a new IPv4/IPv6 agnostic
> protocol for the UNI.
>
> Given that Ethernet, whilst the most popular server network
> interface, is not the exclusive interface and recognizing
> that new link types may emerge, particularly in the IOT space,
> it may serve us better to take an approach that is
> MPLS specific but data-link neutral.
>
> A further consideration is that whilst it may be possible to
> extend ARP for other address families, it is not a protocol
> that is well suited to the transport of other necessary
> UNI information, for example, metrics, QOS information,
> MTU, authentication, integrity, spectral information etc.
>
> An alternative approach that is worth considering as a starting
> point is described in draft-ietf-mpls-gach-adv (in the RFC
> Editor's queue). When we wrote this draft we were attempting
> to define a general UNI approach for MPLS with a focus on
> simplicity.
>
> If you are interested in exploring this with us further we
> would be pleased to work with you on this.
>
> Dan and Stewart
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>


-- 
For corporate legal information go to:

http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email