IETF Logo Mail Archive

[mpls] MPLS extension header

Haoyu song <haoyu.song@huawei.com> Wed, 08 August 2018 22:23 UTC

Return-Path: <haoyu.song@huawei.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 8F357130E30 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Aug 2018 15:23:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 zfNLSNwctRBJ for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Aug 2018 15:23:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A00FD130DC0 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Aug 2018 15:23:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from LHREML714-CAH.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 316104C89F83E for <mpls@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Aug 2018 23:23:49 +0100 (IST)
Received: from SJCEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com (10.208.112.40) by LHREML714-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.37) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.399.0; Wed, 8 Aug 2018 23:23:51 +0100
Received: from SJCEML521-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.107]) by SJCEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.151]) with mapi id 14.03.0399.000; Wed, 8 Aug 2018 15:23:45 -0700
From: Haoyu song <haoyu.song@huawei.com>
To: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: MPLS extension header
Thread-Index: AdQvZQVDLmAHjMN2R8663ePuS7//AQ==
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2018 22:23:45 +0000
Message-ID: <78A2745BE9B57D4F9D27F86655EB87F93750CBB5@sjceml521-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.209.217.138]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_78A2745BE9B57D4F9D27F86655EB87F93750CBB5sjceml521mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/whO7RBNvgQG66K7_uolC0I-j5gY>
Subject: [mpls] MPLS extension header
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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, 08 Aug 2018 22:23:57 -0000

Dear all,

In IETF102 we presented the idea of MPLS extension header and received a lot of discussion. We have updated the draft to reflect the feedbacks we received.
It seems most people agree that we need extension headers (EH) to support multiple emerging in-network services, but there could be debate on how to indicate the existence of the EHs.
In the document we provide our investigations and suggestions but we do want to see your opinion. Hopefully we can achieve a consensus before IETF103.
Thank you in advance for your help!

https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-song-mpls-extension-header-01.txt

Best regards,
Haoyu

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email