Re: [mpls] draft-fang-mpls-label-forwarding-no-swap - how much does it really save?

[Andrew Qu <[e-mail]>]

Alright, not convincingly, I will hold it to myself for now.

Thanks

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 5:53 AM
To: Andrew Qu; Shahram Davari
Cc: Alexander Vainshtein; Robert Raszuk; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [mpls] draft-fang-mpls-label-forwarding-no-swap - how much does it really save?

On 28/07/2015 18:55, Andrew Qu wrote:
> Hi Shahram,
>
> This is a question that must be answered,  but could you please hold the question for now?
>
> I just want to have one issue clarified before moving to another.
>
> Do we agree that _IF_ global label becomes necessary,  no-swap as primitive is necessary?
No, the primitive is not *needed*.

Stewart
>
> Understood that _IF_ will be next topic to follow.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Andrew
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shahram Davari [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 9:40 AM
> To: Andrew Qu
> Cc: [e-mail]; Alexander Vainshtein; Robert Raszuk; 
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [mpls] draft-fang-mpls-label-forwarding-no-swap - how much does it really save?
>
> Andrew
>
> Continue operation in segment routing and in HSDN is not global label. Global label means every router knows how to forward a global label. What is the application for a global label and how does each router know how to forward it?
>
> Regards,
> Shahram
>
>
>> On Jul 28, 2015, at 7:58 AM, Andrew Qu <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Stewart,
>>
>> Agreed that SWAP must be kept because MPLS fundamentals can't be broken.
>> And I agreed that _if_ there is NO such global label space idea, 
>> no-swap is optimization of swap as well.
>>
>> However I don't agree no-swap become an optimization in terms of 
>> network Behavior when global label idea become a needed thing.
>>
>>
>> When global Label introduced, then no_swap is the conceptually right 
>> thing for the transition [even Local implementation can use swap to 
>> achieve, again, per previous conversation, the popular wisdom, which 
>> I agreed as well,  is that this is local implementation, we should 
>> not get involved, so we must define no-swap as the new primitive at 
>> RFC level]
>>
>>
>> So the question really boils down to that do we need global label?
>>
>> I believe that is the key thing here.  May be we can put swap/no-swap aside for the moment.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 4:03 AM
>> To: Andrew Qu; Alexander Vainshtein; Robert Raszuk; Shahram Davari
>> Cc: [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [mpls] draft-fang-mpls-label-forwarding-no-swap - how much does it really save?
>>
>>> Adding "NO_SWAP" for new/future generation DEVICE does NOT break 
>>> backward capability.
>> Andrew
>>
>> Existing devices should be assumed to have non-aligned label spaces.
>> (there is much empirical evidence to support this position)
>>
>> So if you have a no-swap only device between two existing devices you cannot be sure that you can build an LSP.
>>
>> A backwards compatible device would therefore need to support swap.
>>
>> Once you support swap then no-swap become an optimization.
>>
>> - Stewart
>>
>>
>> ************* Email Confidentiality Notice ******************** The 
>> information contained in this e-mail message (including any
>> attachments) may be confidential, proprietary, privileged, or 
>> otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable laws. It is 
>> intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). Any use, 
>> dissemination, distribution, printing, retaining or copying of this 
>> e-mail (including its
>> attachments) by unintended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and 
>> may be unlawful. If you are not an intended recipient of this e-mail, 
>> or believe that you have received this e-mail in error, please notify 
>> the sender immediately (by replying to this e-mail), delete any and 
>> all copies of this e-mail (including any attachments) from your 
>> system, and do not disclose the content of this e-mail to any other person. Thank you!
>>
> ************* Email Confidentiality Notice ******************** The 
> information contained in this e-mail message (including any
> attachments) may be confidential, proprietary, privileged, or 
> otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable laws. It is intended 
> to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). Any use, 
> dissemination, distribution, printing, retaining or copying of this 
> e-mail (including its
> attachments) by unintended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may 
> be unlawful. If you are not an intended recipient of this e-mail, or 
> believe that you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the 
> sender immediately (by replying to this e-mail), delete any and all 
> copies of this e-mail (including any attachments) from your system, 
> and do not disclose the content of this e-mail to any other person. Thank you!
>
> .
>


--
For corporate legal information go to:

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

************* Email Confidentiality Notice ********************
The information contained in this e-mail message (including any 
attachments) may be confidential, proprietary, privileged, or otherwise
exempt from disclosure under applicable laws. It is intended to be 
conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). Any use, dissemination, 
distribution, printing, retaining or copying of this e-mail (including its 
attachments) by unintended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may 
be unlawful. If you are not an intended recipient of this e-mail, or believe 
that you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender 
immediately (by replying to this e-mail), delete any and all copies of 
this e-mail (including any attachments) from your system, and do not
disclose the content of this e-mail to any other person. Thank you!