Hi Robin,

Since I did not get the chance to express my comment during the meeting, I’ll do over email.

SPRING/SR:

- is compliant with the MPLS architecture (RFC 3031)

= ; - in particular, in the control plane l= abels are locally allocated and in the forwarding plane, labels (of global = segments) are SWAPed

- does NOT need global/domain wide label

= ; - local segments uses local labels=

= ; - global segments uses global index = 3; local labels (aka SRGB)

- is not requesting the MPLS WG to work on global/domain wide label. (i.e. the debate is closed from t= he SPRING standpoint.). Obviously, the MPLS WG is free to re-open the debat= e, but this is not a spring thing.

</spring co-chair hat on>

Based on this, some of your slides referring to “SR uses cases” seem a bit misleading. (I can’t be more = specific since during the meeting, I could see the slides but could not com= ment, and now I can comment but can’t see the slides as they are not = online).

Thanks

-- Bruno

From: mpls [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Beh= alf Of Lizhenbin
Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2015 2:27 PM
To: mpls@ietf.org
Subject: [mpls] Solicit Opinions on Definition of MPLS Global Label<= o:p>

Hi MPLSers,

As the development of MPLS technologies, many ne= w label concepts beyond RFC3031 are proposed. And in segment routing M= PLS 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. I= t 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 whi= ch 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 glob= al label and please do not make it bother MPLS WG. But it seems a litt= le hard to convince some MPLSers.

Opinion 2: The usecase truly exists. But the con= cept of global label is too big. It is hard to allocate a label which is un= ique spanning multiple domains or

as IP address which is unique all over world sin= ce it is not a scalable way or it is hard to achieve the goal. Then maybe i= t 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 prese= ntation to collect your opinions, if convenient please help feedback y= our opinion in your mailing list. Hope through

the discussion we can make some consensus.<= /o:p>

Best Regards,

Zhenbin(Robin)

______________________________________________________________________= ___________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confiden= tielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu= ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages el= ectroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou = falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged inf= ormation that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and dele= te this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been = modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.