[mpls] Solicit Opinions on Definition of MPLS Global Label

Lizhenbin <lizhenbin@huawei.com> Wed, 04 November 2015 05:27 UTC

Return-Path: <lizhenbin@huawei.com>
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 3050C1ACD33 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 21:27:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.21
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 HR0SyQhAwuHR for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 21:27:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 330811ACD37 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 21:27:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BZX00976; Wed, 04 Nov 2015 05:27:00 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from NKGEML410-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.41) by lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.240) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 05:26:59 +0000
Received: from NKGEML506-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.20]) by nkgeml410-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.41]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 13:26:54 +0800
From: Lizhenbin <lizhenbin@huawei.com>
To: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Solicit Opinions on Definition of MPLS Global Label
Thread-Index: AdEWs37wCLrB6MbkTaujhtDJQWTFpw==
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2015 05:26:53 +0000
Message-ID: <5A5B4DE12C0DAC44AF501CD9A2B01A8D8CA63EA4@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.194.186.173]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_5A5B4DE12C0DAC44AF501CD9A2B01A8D8CA63EA4nkgeml506mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020203.56399724.0068, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=169.254.3.20, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: efaf5454d5d0c314efd4eb4b5cd42d78
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/txRLW25w463tKjYWk13IfjbrzhA>
Subject: [mpls] Solicit Opinions on Definition of MPLS Global 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: <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: Wed, 04 Nov 2015 05:27:09 -0000

Hi MPLSers,

As the development of MPLS technologies, many new label concepts beyond RFC3031 are proposed. And in segment routing MPLS label can be

allocated and flooded in the network which means the meaning of the lablel can be understood by all nodes in the network. It is totally different from

the label distribution behavior of LDP, RSVP-TE, and MP-BGP. From my point of view we need not argue if it is global label or global ID. In fact, the

possible persons who read the drafts of protocol extensions for segment routing which incorporate the label allocation may be confused that MPLS WG as

the base of MPLS work seems to have nothing with the work. But the challenge of definition of global label truly exists which has been proposed in the draft

https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-li-mpls-global-label-usecases-03.txt. Hope you can refer to Section 4 of the draft.

The debates on MPLS global label have lasted for a long time. The opinions can be classified as following:

Opinion 1: Segment Routing has nothing with global label and please do not make it bother MPLS WG. But it seems a little hard to convince some MPLSers.

Opinion 2: The usecase truly exists. But the concept of global label is too big. It is hard to allocate a label which is unique spanning multiple domains or

as IP address which is unique all over world since it is not a scalable way or it is hard to achieve the goal. Then maybe it is a better way to narrow the

scope to rename the global label as Domain-wide label, Network-wide label, etc.

Opinion 3: The global label can be kept to cover more label concepts which label behaviors in the control plane and forward plane are different form the

traditional LDP/RSVP-TE/MP-BGP.



Since I could not get more time in my presentation to collect your opinions, if convenient please help feedback your opinion in your mailing list. Hope through

the discussion we can make some consensus.







Best Regards,

Zhenbin(Robin)