Re: [mpls] Thoughts on Ancillary Data Indicators.

[John E Drake <[e-mail]>]

Loa,

Another possibility is to have an FAI special purpose label in which the TTL/TC bits are intact followed by another label in which the TTL/TC bits are also intact but in which the twenty bit label field has been turned into a set of twenty bit flags.

Yours Irrespectively,

John


Juniper Business Use Only

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpls <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Loa Andersson
> Sent: Thursday, July 8, 2021 5:11 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; DetNet
> Chairs <[e-mail]>
> Subject: [mpls] Thoughts on Ancillary Data Indicators.
> 
> [External Email. Be cautious of content]
> 
> 
> Design Team,
> 
> We have discussed how to carry ancillary data in  in an MPLS packet and how to
> include indicators on the presences of such data in the label stack since the
> design team started. I think we have some convergence and that it is time to
> float an idea that could be the basis for a consensus. Please note that the actual
> consensus call will be made on the mpls wg mailing list, while this is for
> discussion preparing such a consensus call in the design team.
> 
> The proposals we have for indicators often rely on assignment of a base special
> purpose label. The number of such labels are limited.
> 
> I think we can agree on the following:
> 
> - We want to limit the number of new assignments of base special purpose
>    labels as much as possible
> 
> - We have a standardized associated channel, the GAL/GACH. We are not
>    going to change the associated channel. The associated will remain as
>    specified in RFC 5586. The ACH is found immediately after the label
>    carrying the Bottom of Stack (BoS) bit.
> 
> - We therefore need a (base) special purpose label to serve as the
>    forwarding action indicator carrier.
> 
> - It is attractive to "re-purpose" the ELI to also fill the role as a
>    general (generic?) forwarding action indicator. This may be done by
>    using the TTL and TC fields of the ELI as flags indicating which
>    service is requested.
> 
>    However, in order to do this it must be shown that there is no
>    potential interference between the normal service supplied by the
>    ELI/EL and the services indicated by the flags.
> 
> - If we can't demonstrate the non-interference then we should assign
>    specific forwarding indicator action base special purpose label and
>    leave the ELI/EL unchanged.
> 
> - The flag field of the re-purposed ELI of the the specially assigned
>    forwarding action indicator label must be made extendable. These
>    labels "only" have 11 bits (8 bit TTL and 3 bit TC fields) that can
>    be used as flags. Already in the very preliminary discussions we have
>    had so far are almost using all the 11 bits, making the it necessary
>    to make the indicator extendable.
> 
> /Loa
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
> Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]
> Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: [phone]
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls__;!!
> NEt6yMaO-gk!TT41je-3_SvAKNifs5hqIDE9r8daiUPp6rJSGPeoxwsM10P_yX-
> zttu4FhZtw6E$