Re: [mpls] Comments about draft-xiong-mpls-path-segment-sr-mpls-interworkinganddifference between Path Segment and BSID

Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 16 September 2019 09:41 UTC

Return-Path: <dhruv.ietf@gmail.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 0C8A112081C; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 02:41:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 LfTJl4hhTWXm; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 02:41:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd2a.google.com (mail-io1-xd2a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67AE2120810; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 02:41:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd2a.google.com with SMTP id q10so5276497iop.2; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 02:41:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=K++1IReQuFdUVqnsEKYThfA0ZIh8Oiv4ngVL6EIuk2c=; b=n8ljcjb7hTC+43WE+Z+Oi5pPPs/uCJo6VY9QNM2Vs+cW2ucsnmOEHHHC9FqCc2YXN2 /nn9NC/Buei8OOoRHyzYygQKcrpDbKdPINNhC6FwgLl7SqcCVgxyIkrbvihdLBTm0/Se mQ4GX3B07eb7KQ/MBw2SL7/bjjpxt0fwuUyP44GNydoewHofK67rI8vkblxi04Epd+bf bGdMpquIWk0Op89ypE/Zi4JD0KfInuFrQEvbM+qzJocNqM4Cp/XRtht68CqqvNF3y5hb Wf2c/dglszKHuF2NpRADsu40btJlZh15xuvL46uOapmWu0poQ4XA8uSrw1AuIdtb6z4Y pJEw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=K++1IReQuFdUVqnsEKYThfA0ZIh8Oiv4ngVL6EIuk2c=; b=my5zg/kqOSIF6fsQKByvaz5sydnbLg0k63gatHJZZ+3R26sIDkldgYbtBeMd89aVYu 5CiaLkF2f5mKogZKIQv9XcmCEoTM0bVREvI+gAjtd3eyB6XOYV/PG0WqUJO5bU4ZP7Ly AN+vBxn+7j/10w6lQwDd4JkfAah5UfaN8v4QQZ1ZJyTzTeTjfCewbjIfC315C/c1ak1u LgKCg5rEj9C82z0wrS9eSKFZnbIqIlMyIcpvUM7/phL6E3l1L/ZL0CO/S2IQ4nIEyZtq Iiq9y/oyQMTc8MprezN57jkJ9cPS92rMyB4xuAL8KucWWyUbtZl8R3B3sXvgcHtprZmt jdiw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAU6xVXxL1AbNLVAmF0p6+H9kzPjNX75iVdc91u8WvSZCjdlsA8+ 3r5uZaXNIEw5+DkiPPXv9q6IAaF7cvd2vp9r8Ls=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwGhDW68xIT3gmfyvlIBBFicAI4KuM30peJh6l/yLF3Z7v8qgXUB5Qc96qAgCElDCzEDvRr1LgwPV+uZPACSMA=
X-Received: by 2002:a5e:df04:: with SMTP id f4mr13822300ioq.192.1568626859595; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 02:40:59 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAB75xn5mR9a+yOcohha_8FgzRBhV5Xz767CTd5W7Y-6DWfMFXg@mail.gmail.com> <201909161725385552297@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <201909161725385552297@zte.com.cn>
From: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2019 15:10:23 +0530
Message-ID: <CAB75xn55E3MaehSNJXwytr_WjZfKRu89HAE99U-Tt=9EPZ_2nA@mail.gmail.com>
To: xiong.quan@zte.com.cn
Cc: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>, Tarek Saad <tsaad.net@gmail.com>, mpls@ietf.org, draft-xiong-mpls-path-segment-sr-mpls-interworking@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/pUjKROFBgY24Nu1k7A38FFgpubw>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Comments about draft-xiong-mpls-path-segment-sr-mpls-interworkinganddifference between Path Segment and BSID
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 16 Sep 2019 09:41:02 -0000

Hi Quan,

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 2:55 PM <xiong.quan@zte.com.cn>; wrote:
>
>
> Hi  Dhruv,
>
>
> Thanks for your quick reply!
>
>
> I agree with you that Binding SID can to be used not just for label stack but also stitching in multi-domain scenarios.
>
> The interworking scenario which we proposed also belongs to multi-domain scenarios, but as my last email mentioned,
>
> the Binding SID can not meet our requirement. For example, the bidirectional path correlation and  the per-segment or
>
> per-domain OAM/PM/protection can not be achieved by using  Binding SID.
>
>
> So could you please give us some suggestions to settle this issue?
>
>

I thought I did with -

  May be you need to use *BOTH* path segment and binding segment then!!
  But associating the functionality of a binding SID to a path SID is
  not correct!

Thanks!
Dhruv