IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mpls] working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label

Gmail <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> Sun, 08 May 2016 06:39 UTC

Return-Path: <stewart.bryant@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 3883E12B00F for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 May 2016 23:39:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 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_LOW=-0.7, 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 jCKDBfvf3wSl for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 May 2016 23:39:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-x229.google.com (mail-wm0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::229]) (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 EEEBE12B067 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Sat, 7 May 2016 23:39:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-x229.google.com with SMTP id g17so136598791wme.1 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Sat, 07 May 2016 23:39:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding :message-id:cc:from:subject:date:to; bh=Vx0OQnaxjsnJGRlnUies1JRbfRfxzzPrj5clpaBxvhM=; b=Rt3+v/sU8KzZDa+u0Lg/opoh3rFnaITcXTRS4sCVxU2e9cNnc+ij22y7rmJxeNBkme lwaNXqJk1ZvrIqJi9//eAIuVVRowgxtqBx/N/LEpyC12xRZl1podo0wXIpSJEJiGTf1f UE63GORk8xuypxbJr4zwW9P/rB71LlSVoUpfW62fzruvWPQc+Bs4+j+zSoz/HlcbPX8i lJBFE9SEeJz3jEZWyRB+Q5ezaXV6ClGiTgfSZ6MCqafgI0YrnxdzJxewwPLpqA8AZjm+ pBQkl9lh8TSolk/ttJcw72z1jf1AA8KRR1/QNOGHbiBozlbHOZBM3JPTFX6tSLbvMXas qbDQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:cc:from:subject:date:to; bh=Vx0OQnaxjsnJGRlnUies1JRbfRfxzzPrj5clpaBxvhM=; b=hVGCBsabOZ4PeqeeVDgd/fFljGspxED93jeYq+5YQEg4L54fcx+jhhzimdK4s3i2q/ K4DGzS4hfPvRRHJ/jVmaysWMU+RZ7h+pSMRUTlfHdfs3gFNypPM4y/9T9nAHfFtbjuF/ tgTy4IgmYowLXAvvuXYUccBnSiWSeB5vv9XFt3J0KAw/NemtBOPpEDr7iCbuYlzX4EeM D+/frOxMk/9H9Oudq410f/r3wcc2llL4aoU2tulsKpKp8W01Rl0/RIZ1V3XDhBp6En5S dcJNgGNiUkzC4o5KbdkCyUNIt7TnKfJ1MNv4A3esyPqMafbihE3m9Q8Pfb1yUpQdxQNE XEIg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FUrpnwQ/7TNPOhZ8lDN79ShRJXnd79koBbkuRq1ZOscy9JU1Luc5B3piXv/FTMv/w==
X-Received: by 10.28.167.193 with SMTP id q184mr5379260wme.63.1462689568471; Sat, 07 May 2016 23:39:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.111] (host213-123-124-182.in-addr.btopenworld.com. [213.123.124.182]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 63sm17337464wmz.5.2016.05.07.23.39.26 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 07 May 2016 23:39:26 -0700 (PDT)
References: <571B29F8.1060301@pi.nu> <571E229B.2090405@gmail.com> <CAAA2pyd55Unb55tgzZ1G1C1RRDXkGYgWSf8qctfnM6=qUBkp6g@mail.gmail.com> <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF11221A5E5C2@eusaamb103.ericsson.se> <4CE8FDF9-E02E-42AE-AEC3-479057197CF2@cisco.com> <CAOndX-u+XwHBh=JsCqD1y0j5Sg996ANU8q+0giP7TMWZ6EtqAA@mail.gmail.com> <0DA662F9-7A98-4BAB-8BAB-61E69DE4F612@cisco.com> <CAOndX-uOTx93ewvAxWaFoExnuAwjYvNt7YO7Hd38VZgaxWZjOg@mail.gmail.com> <2BD9AC4F-88D4-477A-A929-97E5B0C050AF@cisco.com> <CAOndX-uN3rYN7SuNiOPOmbTzLNrvG=QOPniy1o+eoyddbXYbSA@mail.gmail.com> <FC15894B-2700-4CE9-BB43-79E53F0F31C8@cisco.com> <etPan.57290b07.201645a9.c824@rob.sh> <EFD10FCB-E120-4D8F-995D-9F2B7B682C39@cisco.com> <3F1FE971-4C91-44E6-ADFF-CB5A78AD184A@rob.sh> <50BC095A-D5E5-4846-8FAD-39B7B54365F3@cisco.com> <572E559E.3050604@gmail.com> <DFC42140-4421-42A6-B201-621B6261B8DE@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <DFC42140-4421-42A6-B201-621B6261B8DE@cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Message-Id: <DE1446E7-8395-42A4-965A-AEEC2B020B82@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (13E238)
From: Gmail <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 08 May 2016 07:39:25 +0100
To: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/sdKGm36Z59ixx6GcuOf1gu7_EeA>
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Sun, 08 May 2016 06:39:32 -0000


Sent from my iPad

> On 8 May 2016, at 02:19, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) <cpignata@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> Stewart, see inline. 
> 
>> On May 7, 2016, at 16:52, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 07/05/2016 18:20, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) wrote:
>>> The paraphrasing is accurate, but I feel it does matter. Say you have a series of Adj-labels. For example (N=node, A=Adj): N1-A1-A2-A3-N2-Payload. N1 is top, N2 is bottom of stack. There’s an RLD of 4. Placing a EL/ELI after A2 or A3 is effectively of null value practically. (E.g., A2 and A3 are specific links, but N1 and N2 are long loose paths). The places where LB could happen while the packet is switched with N1 and N2 will not have an EL/ELI readable, and A2 A3 won’t use EL/ELI.
>> Why would you put an ELI in the middle of a set of adj labels? Surely you want the packet to unconditionally go through those labels?
>> 
> 
> Well, that was exactly my point...
> 
> What I tried to exemplify is that the algorithm does not differentiate between Node labels and Adj labels, and I am asking if it should...
> 
> Thumb typed by Carlos Pignataro.
> Excuze typofraphicak errows
> 
>> - Stewart
>> 

Carlos,

Sorry I misunderstood your point.

A point that I made much earlier in the thread was that it was a local matter and that although the properties of various algorithms might be discussed, no algorithm should be recommended.

Stewart

>> _______________________________________________
>> mpls mailing list
>> mpls@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email