[mpls] 答复: Solicit Opinions on Definition of MPLS Global Label

Lizhenbin <lizhenbin@huawei.com> Wed, 04 November 2015 09:29 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 0D0891B2BE2 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 01:29:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.739
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.739 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, 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 02S6V-mlPA5U for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 01:29:18 -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 E67101B2BE3 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 01:29:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml402-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id CDQ49814; Wed, 04 Nov 2015 09:29:14 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from NKGEML402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.33) by lhreml402-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.241) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 09:29:06 +0000
Received: from NKGEML506-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.20]) by nkgeml402-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.33]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 17:28:15 +0800
From: Lizhenbin <lizhenbin@huawei.com>
To: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [mpls] Solicit Opinions on Definition of MPLS Global Label
Thread-Index: AdEWs37wCLrB6MbkTaujhtDJQWTFp///z0KAgACNwOU=
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2015 09:28:14 +0000
Message-ID: <5A5B4DE12C0DAC44AF501CD9A2B01A8D8CA642F5@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <5A5B4DE12C0DAC44AF501CD9A2B01A8D8CA63EA4@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com>, <5639C761.2030802@pi.nu>
In-Reply-To: <5639C761.2030802@pi.nu>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.194.187.237]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A090202.5639CFEB.0052, 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: eee857013ebad0b6a57b4a1e79e6e341
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/x-nwQNO9Vn12-jpYeN3lhcHk4u0>
Subject: [mpls] 答复: 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 09:29:21 -0000

Hi Loa,
Regarding your point, I explained as follows:
1. The allocation of entropy label is totally different from the traditional LDP/RSVP-TE/MP-BGP.
2. For entropy label/flow label, though it maybe calculated by the ingress router locally, all nodes along the path have the universal understanding that its usage is for ECMP.  My draft proposed the possbile definition of global label that the meaning of the label can be understood by all nodes or part of nodes in one domain other than the local upstream node and downstream node. If based on the definition, the meaning of the entropy label can be understood by all nodes along the LSP.
Owing to the reason, I list it as "global".

Best Regards,
Robin



________________________________________
发件人: Loa Andersson [loa@pi.nu]
发送时间: 2015年11月4日 16:52
收件人: Lizhenbin; mpls@ietf.org
主题: Re: [mpls] Solicit Opinions on Definition of MPLS Global Label

Robin,

One of the label types you list as "global" in your draft is the
Entropy Label. To me it seems that the Entropy Label is scoped by
the label stack and the node(s) doing the hashing on it. WHy do you
think it is "global"?

/Loa



On 2015-11-04 14:26, Lizhenbin wrote:
> 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)
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>