Re: [mpls] nits and question on draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-02

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Sat, 11 February 2017 21:59 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.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 E3B7D129430; Sat, 11 Feb 2017 13:59:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.521
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.521 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 2gepC3tuz_L3; Sat, 11 Feb 2017 13:59:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F0F1129418; Sat, 11 Feb 2017 13:59:23 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=13645; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1486850363; x=1488059963; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=LNUgY2DDHFs9KFdynWI2PTGsyNLf5ljnzFnLsys7UI0=; b=F4RYWUt93xPaLhyVO+DJrfpgr+Y7cNWteGkaqcjvSy2zqJeWTJITxRLa V6C5y0YBjLkvF/t+ShIBiuMylAb75NkjIiZ1IK2dHdfEUZ3PO4sj84MQ/ snCxKJWqnEuwbewCvG/2en3LkMIXXmKEbQK+waj/HEvBf3m66nN+afrOf s=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AfAQCHiJ9Y/5NdJa1eGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBgm9jYXgRB41akgyQCoUsggwshXYCgns/GAECAQEBAQEBAWIohGk?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEEeRACAQgRAwECKAcyFAkIAgQOBYlqDrFni0gBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEYBYs7hHSFRQWQA4VRhh4Bhm6LJZEFkxQBHziBAFEVhQIdgWF1AYkpgQw?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.35,148,1484006400"; d="scan'208,217";a="205405720"
Received: from rcdn-core-11.cisco.com ([173.37.93.147]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 11 Feb 2017 21:59:19 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-017.cisco.com (xch-aln-017.cisco.com [173.36.7.27]) by rcdn-core-11.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v1BLxJ00022330 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sat, 11 Feb 2017 21:59:19 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-015.cisco.com (173.37.102.25) by XCH-ALN-017.cisco.com (173.36.7.27) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Sat, 11 Feb 2017 15:59:19 -0600
Received: from xch-rcd-015.cisco.com ([173.37.102.25]) by XCH-RCD-015.cisco.com ([173.37.102.25]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Sat, 11 Feb 2017 15:59:19 -0600
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [mpls] nits and question on draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-02
Thread-Index: AQHShI3kphzjorylQ02VnbUB643jFaFkhRWA//+1NICAAFf3gP//2ZOA
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2017 21:59:19 +0000
Message-ID: <D4C4F29D.9C26B%acee@cisco.com>
References: <D4C4B5FD.9C23E%acee@cisco.com> <D713341E-F21A-4632-BB1D-0880FF36C9EF@cisco.com> <D4C4C7FA.9C253%acee@cisco.com> <A9C6442D-12AA-4CD8-9F9C-76B0CBF42AC5@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <A9C6442D-12AA-4CD8-9F9C-76B0CBF42AC5@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.196]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D4C4F29D9C26Baceeciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/tj5B1xHrT309iAMbM4U1Zfrfplo>
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "mpls-chairs@ietf.org" <mpls-chairs@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] nits and question on draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-02
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: Sat, 11 Feb 2017 21:59:26 -0000

Hi Carlos,

From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com<mailto:cpignata@cisco.com>>
Date: Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 2:16 PM
To: Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com<mailto:acee@cisco.com>>
Cc: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu<mailto:loa@pi.nu>>, "mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org>" <mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org>>, "mpls-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:mpls-chairs@ietf.org>" <mpls-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:mpls-chairs@ietf.org>>, "draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping@ietf.org>" <draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [mpls] nits and question on draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-02

Hi Acee,


On Feb 11, 2017, at 2:02 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com<mailto:acee@cisco.com>> wrote:

Hi Carlos,

I guess I commented without knowing the context of the comment ;^) See inline.

From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com<mailto:cpignata@cisco.com>>
Date: Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 1:29 PM
To: Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com<mailto:acee@cisco.com>>
Cc: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu<mailto:loa@pi.nu>>, "mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org>" <mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org>>, "mpls-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:mpls-chairs@ietf.org>" <mpls-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:mpls-chairs@ietf.org>>, "draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping@ietf.org>" <draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [mpls] nits and question on draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-02

Hi, Acee,

On Feb 11, 2017, at 12:40 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com<mailto:acee@cisco.com>> wrote:

And a last question, should BGP-LS be in that registry?


I guess no until someone needs it?

BGP-LS has its own set of registries.

Thanks. Yes. The question is whether to have a BGP-LS value for the MPLS LSP Ping DDMAP protocol: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-02#section-6

In that case, it might make sense to add a code point for BGP-LS since it is the only way to advertise the SIDs (i.e, labels when MPLS SR is the data plane) for BGP EPE as described in https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid-04.txt. However, one could argue that specifying BGP would suffice since unless you are going to specify other BGP Address Families (AFI/SAFI tuples) as individual protocols.


That's exactly the question - use the BGP protocol or define a new BGP-LS?

To me though, until someone sits down to do the BGP EPE LSP Ping analysis, we should not assume one way or another.

I'd vote to just use BGP rather than setting the precedent of a separate protocol ID for an AFI/SAFI - are we going to have a protocol ID for BGP L3VPN or BGP EVPN? I guess the question is, from an OAM perspective, how is the DDMAP protocol going to be used?

Thanks,
Acee






Thanks,

Carlos.

Thanks,
Acee




Thanks,

Carlos.