Re: [mpls] new published draft-kompella-mpls-special-purpose-labels-01 (Adrian Farrel)

["Vivek Kumar" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Adrain,
      Thanks for keeping us in job :) 
      Having extension approach is good idea but the recursive nature means more possibility which result in more work for SW/HW without any extra benefit. Less the possibilities more deterministic the behavior .

   Since the idea of the draft  is to expand reserved label space , having only one extension label (15) will make things simpler.  The recursive label approach is not giving any additional information or scope but merely testing the system if it can handle Exten-label->Exten-label-> Exten-label->Exten-label ->...

One more question, the new special action label range (16 - 1048559/75) need to be excluded or included when doing ECMP using MPLS labels as inputs (draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-label-06 ) ?

Regards,
Vivek


-----Original Message-----
From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 6:11 PM
To: Vivek Kumar; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [mpls] new published draft-kompella-mpls-special-purpose-labels-01 (Adrian Farrel)

Hello,

Well, we were looking for a format that would make things as hard as possible
for the chip vendors :-)

We wanted labels 0-15 (i.e. what are now to be called the special labels) to
preserve their meaning in the extended space.
Thus 15->3 has the same meaning as 3.

We were not sure that this was important, but it seemed like the right thing to
do.

That meant that 15->15 has the same meaning as 15.

And hence 15->15->3 has the same meaning as 3.

I would say that the authors were not strongly wedded to this. If there was
group-think that the whole extended special label range (0-1048575) should be
new, we could probably live with it.

Actually, a chip manufacturer could help here. Assuming that label 15 means you
throw the label and look at the next one, does it make things easier or harder
to find a special label value (say 3) and have one or two ways of handling it
depending on whether you have just found a label 15?

Cheers,
Adrian


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
> Vivek Kumar
> Sent: 25 October 2012 06:36
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [mpls] new published draft-kompella-mpls-special-purpose-labels-
> 01 (Adrian Farrel)
> 
> Hi,
>   Just curious on Section 3.1 statement  "  In particular, an arbitrary string
of
> consecutive extension labels is  legal, and semantically equivalent to a
single
> extension label (note  that this string of extension labels MUST be followed
by an
> extended  special purpose label that is not the extension label).".
> 
>  Does this mean it will allow recursive extension labels like
Exten-label->Exten-
> label->"Standard Action label"  ? Any special reason not to restrict only one
> extension label in MPLS header ?
> 
> Regards,
> Vivek
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 11:30:28 -0400
> From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[e-mail]>
> To: Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>
> Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [mpls] new published
> 	draft-kompella-mpls-special-purpose-labels-01
> Message-ID:
> 	<CAA=duU33_Pc6dBuYd30MA4WXjwJBWCSyc2KDZnKdx-
> [e-mail]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> 
> On the whole, it looks good. I'm curious who's going to have the
> responsibility of running the process in section 3.2. IANA? (probably
> not). The WG chairs?  What if there's no longer an MPLS working group
> at some point? This should be clarified.
> 
> Thanks,
> Andy
> 
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 6:13 AM, Loa Andersson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Working Group,
> >
> > the decreasing number of "reserved labels" has been of concern
> > for some time. draft-kompella-mpls-special-purpose-labels-01 proposes
> > a way to increase the the number of special purpose labels.
> >
> > We propose to take the current label 15 and use it as an extension
> > label, i.e. any label that follows label 15 should be interpreted
> > as belonging to the new "extension registry" that we propose.
> >
> > We also propose changing the name of the special purpose labels
> > from "reserved labels" to "special purpose labels"; the main reason here
> > is that in the IANA registries "reserved" has an another meaning.
> >
> > Please review the draft and comment to the list.
> >
> > /Loa
> > --
> >
> >
> > Loa Andersson                         email: [e-mail]
> > Sr Strategy and Standards Manager            [e-mail]
> > Ericsson Inc                          phone: [phone]
> >                                              [phone]
> > _______________________________________________
> > mpls mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 17:43:48 +0200
> From: Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>
> To: "Andrew G. Malis" <[e-mail]>
> Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [mpls] new published
> 	draft-kompella-mpls-special-purpose-labels-01
> Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> 
> Andy,
> 
> this is in the category "good questions", when Scott Bradner were our AD
> he always said that there should be a "caretaker" appointed when a wg
> is closed But I don't know if this has been done consistently.
> 
> /Loa
> 
> On 2012-10-24 17:30, Andrew G. Malis wrote:
> > On the whole, it looks good. I'm curious who's going to have the
> > responsibility of running the process in section 3.2. IANA? (probably
> > not). The WG chairs?  What if there's no longer an MPLS working group
> > at some point? This should be clarified.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Andy
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 6:13 AM, Loa Andersson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >> Working Group,
> >>
> >> the decreasing number of "reserved labels" has been of concern
> >> for some time. draft-kompella-mpls-special-purpose-labels-01 proposes
> >> a way to increase the the number of special purpose labels.
> >>
> >> We propose to take the current label 15 and use it as an extension
> >> label, i.e. any label that follows label 15 should be interpreted
> >> as belonging to the new "extension registry" that we propose.
> >>
> >> We also propose changing the name of the special purpose labels
> >> from "reserved labels" to "special purpose labels"; the main reason here
> >> is that in the IANA registries "reserved" has an another meaning.
> >>
> >> Please review the draft and comment to the list.
> >>
> >> /Loa
> >> --
> >>
> >>
> >> Loa Andersson                         email: [e-mail]
> >> Sr Strategy and Standards Manager            [e-mail]
> >> Ericsson Inc                          phone: [phone]
> >>                                               [phone]
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> mpls mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> 
> --
> 
> 
> Loa Andersson                         email: [e-mail]
> Sr Strategy and Standards Manager            [e-mail]
> Ericsson Inc                          phone: [phone]
>                                               [phone]
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 18:08:31 +0100
> From: "Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>
> To: <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: [mpls] AD review of draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping
> Message-ID: <12d901cdb20a$320b7080$96225180$@olddog.co.uk>
> Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"
> 
> Thanks for this document. I have done my usual AD review and have
> nothing to add except for some minor comments on the IANA section.
> If you could make an update that would be very helpful.
> 
> You do not need to wait for the submission gates to reopen on 5th
> November. If you send me the file(s) for submission I will get the
> Secretariat to post them.
> 
> Thanks,
> Adrian
> 
> ---
> 
> Section 6
> 
> It appears you are asking to *replace* the pointer to RFC 4379 for the
> three IPv4 sub-TLVs. I don't think you should do that because they are
> defined in 4379. So add the word "also".
> 
> OLD
>    Update the names of the Value fields of these three Sub-TLVs, adding
>    the "IPv4" qualifier (see Section 2), and update the Reference to
>    point to this document:
> NEW
>    Update the names of the Value fields of these three Sub-TLVs, adding
>    the "IPv4" qualifier (see Section 2), and update the Reference to
>    also point to this document:
> END
> 
> ---
> 
> Section 6 usefully calls out TBD1 and TBD2, but the rest of the document
> uniformly uses TBD. If you could update to always use TBD1 and TBD2 this
> will ensure that the RFC Editor works with IANA to get this right.
> 
> ---
> 
> In Section 6, please explicitly ask IANA to make the appropriate entries
> in the Type 21 sub-TLVs list.
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 18:39:04 +0100
> From: "Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>
> To: "'Andrew G. Malis'" <[e-mail]>, "'Loa Andersson'"
> 	<[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [mpls] new	published
> 	draft-kompella-mpls-special-purpose-labels-01
> Message-ID: <12ed01cdb20e$76d46650$647d32f0$@olddog.co.uk>
> Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"
> 
> Hi Andy,
> 
> Section 3.2 is about withdrawing reserved labels. I suspect that we will all
be
> retired long before the MPLS WG closes down :-)
> 
> However, bullet (a) of 3.2 says:
> 
>        A label value that has been assigned from the "Special Purpose
>        MPLS Label Values" may be deprecated by IETF consensus with
>        review by the MPLS working group (or designated experts if the
>        working group or a successor does not exist).
> 
> So a designated expert (appointed by the IESG as with all designated experts)
> will be required. If one has not been appointed at the time of retirement of
the
> label, IANA would ask the IESG to appoint one. I think this would be the same
> expert(s) as for label allocation.
> 
> The other steps in the process just ask for RFCs (i.e. publication requests
for
> I-Ds) on specific tracks. I suppose that whoever wants to retire a label will
> write the RFCs.
> 
> Did we miss any other decision points?
> 
> Cheers,
> Adrian
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
> > Andrew G. Malis
> > Sent: 24 October 2012 16:30
> > To: Loa Andersson
> > Cc: [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [mpls] new published
draft-kompella-mpls-special-purpose-labels-
> > 01
> >
> > On the whole, it looks good. I'm curious who's going to have the
> > responsibility of running the process in section 3.2. IANA? (probably
> > not). The WG chairs?  What if there's no longer an MPLS working group
> > at some point? This should be clarified.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Andy
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 6:13 AM, Loa Andersson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > > Working Group,
> > >
> > > the decreasing number of "reserved labels" has been of concern
> > > for some time. draft-kompella-mpls-special-purpose-labels-01 proposes
> > > a way to increase the the number of special purpose labels.
> > >
> > > We propose to take the current label 15 and use it as an extension
> > > label, i.e. any label that follows label 15 should be interpreted
> > > as belonging to the new "extension registry" that we propose.
> > >
> > > We also propose changing the name of the special purpose labels
> > > from "reserved labels" to "special purpose labels"; the main reason here
> > > is that in the IANA registries "reserved" has an another meaning.
> > >
> > > Please review the draft and comment to the list.
> > >
> > > /Loa
> > > --
> > >
> > >
> > > Loa Andersson                         email: [e-mail]
> > > Sr Strategy and Standards Manager            [e-mail]
> > > Ericsson Inc                          phone: [phone]
> > >                                              [phone]
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > mpls mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> > _______________________________________________
> > mpls mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> 
> 
> End of mpls Digest, Vol 102, Issue 53
> *************************************
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls