Re: [mpls] Clarification on the motivation of draft-xu-spring-islands-connection-over-ip-05

"Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <> Tue, 12 April 2016 00:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6B3912D734; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 17:23:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.516
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.516 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P377ktsvJxiy; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 17:23:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 23E4F12D748; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 17:23:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=11884; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1460420586; x=1461630186; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=0N3D5npgpPjjS2Sk0b53JGAMw/sz/zcnpq/344krXLE=; b=VkDejO+pkJJD+ts3zSW6Z1603UjhAnL5GwaCsW2FXvWbxo/nJCe1hfTt LOc4ER0giT/48utJ3wDcDLg4rEjRFzTV7jl64M02tyPa1AEGZCKhyp5Je APyP9kKjpFLsADlhh53MeZq8Kzg2EA7CgDwnFvpejcw2hIFds9EKaxvkr 0=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 841
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,471,1454976000"; d="asc'?scan'208,217";a="260310481"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 12 Apr 2016 00:23:02 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u3C0N2Fm030948 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 12 Apr 2016 00:23:02 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 20:23:01 -0400
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 20:23:01 -0400
From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <>
To: Xuxiaohu <>
Thread-Topic: [mpls] Clarification on the motivation of draft-xu-spring-islands-connection-over-ip-05
Thread-Index: AQHRkR5txOXaaHM/6UCWJNsvqUTm05+Fw8EA
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 00:23:01 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_FBC78056-BC74-4EFE-A392-288FE2300AD4"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha256"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Clarification on the motivation of draft-xu-spring-islands-connection-over-ip-05
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 00:23:07 -0000

> On Apr 7, 2016, at 6:39 PM, Xuxiaohu <> wrote:
> On 4/6/2016 11:37 AM, Xuxiaohu wrote:
>> The situation in MPLS-SR is a little bit complex since the outgoing label for a given /32 or /128 prefix FEC could be learnt either from the IGP next-hop of that FEC or the originator of that FEC due to the IGP flooding property. In the former case, the IGP next-hop for a given FEC is taken as the next-hop of the received MPLS packet belonging to that FEC; in the latter case, the originator of that FEC is taken as the next-hop of the MPLS packet belonging to that FEC ... the latter case belongs to the "remote label distribution peer" case as defined in RFC3031
> I don't believe this is correct.  In SR, the fact that label L was
> advertised by node N does not imply that a packet with L at the top of
> the stack needs to be tunneled to N.  In the typical case, the packet
> [Xiaohu] The FEC associated the above label L is the /32 or 128/ prefix of node N. When the IGP next-hop towards that FEC is a non-MPLS node, the LSR receiving the above MPLS packet with top label of L is desired to forward that MPLS packet towards node N via an IP-based tunnel. In this case, the node N is the remote peer for that FEC.

Is this really a “remote label distribution peer”? Or a local one by way of the forwarding adjacency of an IP Tunnel as a logical MPLS-enabled interface (towards N or bypassing the old router)?


— Carlos.

> Best regards,
> Xiaohu