IETF Logo Mail Archive

[mpls] Mail regarding draft-chen-mpls-source-label

Yimin Shen <yshen@juniper.net> Wed, 19 March 2014 16:03 UTC

Return-Path: <yshen@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5A601A0784 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 09:03:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 MHuKYquLmTuW for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 09:03:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tx2outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (tx2ehsobe001.messaging.microsoft.com [65.55.88.11]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C6411A0775 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 09:03:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail176-tx2-R.bigfish.com (10.9.14.231) by TX2EHSOBE014.bigfish.com (10.9.40.34) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.22; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 16:02:51 +0000
Received: from mail176-tx2 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail176-tx2-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B6841201B9; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 16:02:51 +0000 (UTC)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.56.240.101; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:BL2PRD0510HT004.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI
X-SpamScore: 1
X-BigFish: VPS1(zzc85fhe0eah4015Izz1f42h2148h208ch1ee6h1de0h1fdah2073h2146h1202h1e76h2189h1d1ah1d2ah21bch1fc6hzz18c673hz2fh109h2a8h839hd24hf0ah1288h12a5h12bdh137ah1441h1504h1537h153bh162dh1631h1758h18e1h1946h19b5h19ceh1ad9h1b0ah1bceh224fh1d07h1d0ch1d2eh1d3fh1dc1h1de9h1dfeh1dffh1fe8h1ff5h20f0h2216h22d0h2336h2461h2487h24d7h2516h2545h255eh25cch25f6h2605h2668h9a9j1155h)
Received-SPF: pass (mail176-tx2: domain of juniper.net designates 157.56.240.101 as permitted sender) client-ip=157.56.240.101; envelope-from=yshen@juniper.net; helo=BL2PRD0510HT004.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ; .outlook.com ;
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report-Untrusted: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009001)(6009001)(428001)(164054003)(199002)(189002)(74706001)(74876001)(74366001)(74316001)(95416001)(69226001)(94946001)(87936001)(575784001)(86362001)(87266001)(93516002)(76176001)(85306002)(83322001)(81342001)(74662001)(31966008)(56776001)(47446002)(54316002)(74502001)(19580395003)(76482001)(80976001)(94316002)(2656002)(95666003)(51856001)(81816001)(54356001)(81686001)(53806001)(97186001)(81542001)(83072002)(97336001)(56816005)(85852003)(33646001)(76786001)(76796001)(50986001)(49866001)(47736001)(76576001)(47976001)(46102001)(90146001)(4396001)(15202345003)(63696002)(77982001)(59766001)(65816001)(92566001)(79102001)(66066001)(15975445006)(80022001)(20776003)(93136001)(24736002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:BY2PR05MB728; H:BY2PR05MB728.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:FE1AD90A.8CF2D989.B8DF6197.15C46D51.209DE; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
Received: from mail176-tx2 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail176-tx2 (MessageSwitch) id 1395244969712721_7357; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 16:02:49 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from TX2EHSMHS001.bigfish.com (unknown [10.9.14.241]) by mail176-tx2.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B0241C0058; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 16:02:49 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from BL2PRD0510HT004.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (157.56.240.101) by TX2EHSMHS001.bigfish.com (10.9.99.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.227.3; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 16:02:46 +0000
Received: from BY2PR05MB728.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.223.25) by BL2PRD0510HT004.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.255.100.39) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.423.0; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 16:02:42 +0000
Received: from BY2PR05MB728.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.223.25) by BY2PR05MB728.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.223.25) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.898.11; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 16:02:41 +0000
Received: from BY2PR05MB728.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.223.25]) by BY2PR05MB728.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.223.25]) with mapi id 15.00.0898.005; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 16:02:40 +0000
From: Yimin Shen <yshen@juniper.net>
To: "draft-chen-mpls-source-label@tools.ietf.org" <draft-chen-mpls-source-label@tools.ietf.org>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Mail regarding draft-chen-mpls-source-label
Thread-Index: Ac9DjKc5+oLTXGUsQoqhiLRkJXmJtg==
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 16:02:40 +0000
Message-ID: <6a6f31744d9e4916b50d73b96bb0b091@BY2PR05MB728.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [66.129.241.13]
x-forefront-prvs: 01559F388D
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_6a6f31744d9e4916b50d73b96bb0b091BY2PR05MB728namprd05pro_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn%
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/roczVx9q6HdkgacbguneaB3gQCc
Subject: [mpls] Mail regarding draft-chen-mpls-source-label
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 16:03:03 -0000

Hi authors,

Can you please clarify if SL is expected to be used only by egress node, or by intermediate node as well ?

Section 3.2 "Traffic Matrix Measurement and Steering" describes a use case for intermediate node, but I think congestion should in general be resolved by control plane to reroute traffic based on a global view of network resources, rather than by data plane based on a SL. In your case, would the intermediate node move the traffic to an LSP that is different than the LSP intended by the ingress node ? I don't think it is the right thing to do.

Regarding the use case of section 3.3 "Source Filtering". If somebody is doing DoS attack, why would he put an SL in the packets ?

Thanks,

/Yimin

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email