IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mpls] MPLS label and LSE data models

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Mon, 05 June 2017 23:56 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 A214512E043; Mon, 5 Jun 2017 16:56:01 -0700 (PDT)
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 v-oHJjIdpJUW; Mon, 5 Jun 2017 16:55:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-8.cisco.com (alln-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.142.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5BD3712ACAF; Mon, 5 Jun 2017 16:55:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=9403; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1496706959; x=1497916559; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=TS6PbP/HGCr/0JasVPM5aNQ3b4leRMbrA1CPn8hmQEg=; b=IeIUZ6iC0ApVRRVhUrRm8U3iZGY6FqTybjFGc2ElaoTxsGb9MJz/TUWs p6AGmTAlqKk7UqBuIajk0W8HdMVy8C2VZtaGsKSNT5fWHXDDKOmOKHny6 4w/6IfSqazVEIsMPLjuMHoay80nNmbbrDG6/8eDmEI3AW4itYIVRFZLkp I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AVAQAg7zVZ/4sNJK1dGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBBwEBAQEBgm9pYoENB4NsihmSA4gqiBuFOIIQJIYAAhqCbj8YAQIBAQEBAQEBayiFGAEBAQEDI1YQAgEIEQMBAigDAgICHxEUCQgCBAENBYlGTAMVrS+CJodADYQ4AQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBHYhBgx+CWIIyHoJUgmEFlwGGdzsBhyGHM4RYkXyLPIkiAR84gQp0FUaHBnaIHYENAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.39,303,1493683200"; d="scan'208,217";a="436044598"
Received: from alln-core-6.cisco.com ([173.36.13.139]) by alln-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 05 Jun 2017 23:55:58 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-014.cisco.com (xch-rtp-014.cisco.com [64.101.220.154]) by alln-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v55NtwJV030946 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 5 Jun 2017 23:55:58 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-014.cisco.com (64.101.220.154) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Mon, 5 Jun 2017 19:55:57 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Mon, 5 Jun 2017 19:55:57 -0400
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>, "draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-mpls-static-yang@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mpls-static-yang@ietf.org>
CC: "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: MPLS label and LSE data models
Thread-Index: AQHS3ksFPA4mDDKsXkmMIsSaphDK+qIW8fIA
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2017 23:55:57 +0000
Message-ID: <D55B6659.B21B8%acee@cisco.com>
References: <CA+RyBmVH=KCi3T8u2dB_WaKBOLheYwT4q0d+tpYdT-Z2iTZ+og@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+RyBmVH=KCi3T8u2dB_WaKBOLheYwT4q0d+tpYdT-Z2iTZ+og@mail.gmail.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_D55B6659B21B8aceeciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/uDQg8LHN2Uzt9dOPNnzc5WhV8DI>
Subject: Re: [mpls] MPLS label and LSE data models
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Mon, 05 Jun 2017 23:56:02 -0000

Greg, et al,

From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com<mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>>
Date: Monday, June 5, 2017 at 6:28 PM
To: "draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types@ietf.org>" <draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types@ietf.org>>, "draft-ietf-mpls-static-yang@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-mpls-static-yang@ietf.org>" <draft-ietf-mpls-static-yang@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-mpls-static-yang@ietf.org>>
Cc: Routing WG <rtgwg@ietf.org<mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>>, "mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org>" <mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org>>
Subject: MPLS label and LSE data models
Resent-From: <alias-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:alias-bounces@ietf.org>>
Resent-To: Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.qu@huawei.com<mailto:yingzhen.qu@huawei.com>>, <xufeng_liu@jabil.com<mailto:xufeng_liu@jabil.com>>, Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com<mailto:acee@cisco.com>>, Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org<mailto:chopps@chopps.org>>, <lberger@labn.net<mailto:lberger@labn.net>>
Resent-Date: Monday, June 5, 2017 at 6:28 PM

Dear Authors, et.al<http://et.al>,
I've got a question, or several of them, about data models of MPLS label and MPLS label stack element (LSE). I ahve not followed the discussions and apologize if these already were considered, discussed.
In the Routing Types document I've found that only MPLS label being modeled but not the MPLS LSE. As result, models that use rt-types:mpls-label, e.g. YANG DAta Model for MPLS Static LSPs, defines outgoing labels not as array of LSEs but as array (leaf-list) of MPLS labels. In the latter document I don't see how TTL and Traffic Class (TC) are presented for each of labels in the array. Hence my questions:

  *   should there be data model of MPLS LSE in rt-types (it does have TTL and TC but separately);

  *   should data model of Static MPLS LSP use MPLS LSE model rather than model of only 20 bit-long label.

Where else so you see  a requirement for a label stack with entries that don’t contain TC and TTL? This seems specific to static provisioning of static LSPs rather than a general requirement for ietf-routing-types.

Thanks,
Acee


Appreciate you comments.

Regards,
Greg

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email