IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-sitaraman-mpls-rsvp-shared-labels

"Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.dong@huawei.com> Wed, 18 October 2017 15:18 UTC

Return-Path: <jie.dong@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 464DF132D8A; Wed, 18 Oct 2017 08:18:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.22
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.22 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 ughhPFZDaeVW; Wed, 18 Oct 2017 08:18:39 -0700 (PDT)
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 9F871132CE7; Wed, 18 Oct 2017 08:18:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO LHREML712-CAH.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DXZ62961; Wed, 18 Oct 2017 15:18:36 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from NKGEML411-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.70) by LHREML712-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.361.1; Wed, 18 Oct 2017 16:18:35 +0100
Received: from NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com ([fe80::a54a:89d2:c471:ff]) by nkgeml411-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.70]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Wed, 18 Oct 2017 23:18:28 +0800
From: "Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.dong@huawei.com>
To: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
CC: "<rtg-ads@ietf.org>" <rtg-ads@ietf.org>, "draft-sitaraman-mpls-rsvp-shared-labels@ietf.org" <draft-sitaraman-mpls-rsvp-shared-labels@ietf.org>, "mpls-chairs@ietf.org" <mpls-chairs@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-sitaraman-mpls-rsvp-shared-labels
Thread-Index: AQHTRQAHY8BvxNqOE0iB8By79J5lSqLptQIw
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 15:18:28 +0000
Message-ID: <76CD132C3ADEF848BD84D028D243C92793895C23@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <1872ff72-845f-4b85-11a5-f00123223fb5@pi.nu>
In-Reply-To: <1872ff72-845f-4b85-11a5-f00123223fb5@pi.nu>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.210.165.154]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020206.59E770CC.01FB, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 5cb179093dc46cc31fe7886bc01505d0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/wmwrG4rpyv0Ed7ogZ0akMAf38Lg>
Subject: Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-sitaraman-mpls-rsvp-shared-labels
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: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 15:18:41 -0000

Hi Loa,

I've read this document and think it provides a useful function for reducing the data plane state of RSVP-TE LSPs. Thus I support the adoption.

I concur with Lou's concern about the TE bandwidth/tspec/rspec processing, the impact of shared label on this needs to be specified. 

I also have some concerns about the automatic delegation process described in section 5.3, maybe I need to reread it, but it seems that in some cases the mechanism may not result in an appropriate set of delegation nodes. And what would happen if the ETLD value in the received PATH message is bigger than the maximum number of labels this node can handle? It seems this case was not covered in section 5.3.

It would be great if the above concerns could be considered either before or after the adoption. 

Best regards,
Jie

-----Original Message-----
From: mpls [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Loa Andersson
Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2017 11:20 PM
To: mpls@ietf.org
Cc: <rtg-ads@ietf.org>; draft-sitaraman-mpls-rsvp-shared-labels@ietf.org; mpls-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-sitaraman-mpls-rsvp-shared-labels

Working Group,

This is to start a two week poll on adopting
draft-sitaraman-mpls-rsvp-shared-labels-02 as a MPLS working group document.

Please send your comments (support/not support) to the mpls working group mailing list (mpls@ietf.org). Please give a technical motivation for your support/not support, especially if you think that the document should not be adopted as a working group document.

There are three IPR disclosures (though one disclosure seems to be an
update) against this document.

All the authors have stated on the MPLS wg mailing list that they are unaware of any other IPRs that those that has been disclosed

The working group adoption poll ends October 29, 2017.

/Loa
mpls wg co-chair
-- 


Loa Andersson                        email: loa@pi.nu
Senior MPLS Expert
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

v2.20.3 | Report a Bug | By Email