Re: [mpls] Poll 2: New SPL vs re-purposed ELI for carrying Network Action Indicators

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Hi Zafar,
I have a question about your conclusion. You've said

In summary, IMO the progression of
draft-decraene-mpls-slid-encoded-entropy-label-id as the “starting” point
should not be mixed up with the question in this poll.

Do you believe that the solution proposed in
draft-decraene-mpls-slid-encoded-entropy-label-id does not address MNA
requirements listed in draft-ietf-mpls-miad-mna-requirements
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-miad-mna-requirements/>?
looking forward to hear your thoughts on how you see the relationship
between raft-decraene-mpls-slid-encoded-entropy-label-id and the list of
the MNA requirements that, as I understand, the WG agreed in principle as a
good starting point to work on?

Regards,
Greg

On Sun, Jun 5, 2022 at 8:37 PM Zafar Ali (zali) <zali=
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Dear chairs and the WG:
>
> I feel, we need to qualify the scope of the “(2) re-purposing the ELI SPL”
> question
> I.e., we need to answer the poll from a short term perspective and the
> long term view
>
> As discussed during the PALS session at IETF113,
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-decraene-mpls-slid-encoded-entropy-label-id/
> meets our immediate needs; thanks to the following attributes:
> * Hardware efficient
>     + It minimized the label stack (EL is used for both the load-balancing
> and the immediate additional use-cases with "8" indicators)
> * Enables faster and incremental deployments
>     + Thanks to wide support of ELI on current HW
>     + Preserves the backward compatibility (with legacy devices)
> * Reuses control plan
>     + Does not require extensions to signal support (in BGP, ISIS, OSPF,
> BGP-LS, LDP, RSVP-TE, etc.)
>
> In summary, IMO the progression of
> draft-decraene-mpls-slid-encoded-entropy-label-id as the “starting” point
> should not be mixed up with the question in this poll
>
> Thanks
>
> Regards … Zafar
>
>
> On 5/30/22, 5:22 PM, "mpls on behalf of Loa Andersson" <
> [e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>     MPLS Working Group, MPLS Open DT,
>
>     The MPLS Network Actions (MNA) framework requires a method of
> indicating
>     the presence of a Network Action and any Ancillary Data.
>
>     Is the consensus of the working group that we do this by:
>
>        (1) allocating a new SPL for Network Action Indicators?
>
>        (2) re-purposing the ELI SPL?
>
>        (3) using some other method of indicating this such as making it an
>            additional property of an ordinary label?
>
>     Please respond to the MPLS WG mail list.
>
>     Loa Andersson
>     for the Open DT wg chairs
>
>     --
>     Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
>     Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]
>     Bronze Dragon Consulting             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
>