Re: [mpls] For your review - Issues/errors/clarifications in RFC3 036

Eric Gray <ewgray2k@netscape.net> Fri, 08 October 2004 22:16 UTC

Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA23964; Fri, 8 Oct 2004 18:16:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CG3CU-0006Sw-HO; Fri, 08 Oct 2004 18:27:01 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CG2vE-0001Nq-Vx; Fri, 08 Oct 2004 18:09:09 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CG2sX-0007Tm-Q4 for mpls@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 08 Oct 2004 18:06:23 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA22396 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Oct 2004 18:06:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from imo-d02.mx.aol.com ([205.188.157.34]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CG32X-0006Co-1Q for mpls@ietf.org; Fri, 08 Oct 2004 18:16:41 -0400
Received: from ewgray2k@netscape.net by imo-d02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v37_r3.8.) id p.1b7.c154ff4 (16240); Fri, 8 Oct 2004 18:05:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [192.168.7.129] (h00a0ccd1a9ec.ne.client2.attbi.com [24.61.197.198]) by air-in03.mx.aol.com (v101_r1.4) with ESMTP id MAILININ34-3f7041670f2f8e; Fri, 08 Oct 2004 18:05:36 -0400
Message-ID: <41670F28.7020603@netscape.net>
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 18:05:28 -0400
From: Eric Gray <ewgray2k@netscape.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax)
X-Accept-Language: en,pdf
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: neil.2.harrison@bt.com
Subject: Re: [mpls] For your review - Issues/errors/clarifications in RFC3 036
References: <0536FC9B908BEC4597EE721BE6A353890A9F12E9@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net>
In-Reply-To: <0536FC9B908BEC4597EE721BE6A353890A9F12E9@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net>
X-AOL-IP: 24.61.197.198
X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version)
X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+)
X-Scan-Signature: c2e58d9873012c90703822e287241385
Cc: mpls@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: mpls@lists.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: ewgray@graiymage.com
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.lists.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/mpls>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@lists.ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1147855317=="
Sender: mpls-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: mpls-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+)
X-Scan-Signature: fb93e867a11a29ac1dc5018706b412ac

Neil,

    What you ask should only be a concern if an implementation is either
sloppy in allocating labels or not particularly careful about re-allocating
them.

    There is a "window of opportunity" if an implementation re-issues labels
on a time scale similar to expected packet inter-arrival time for 
traffic using
that label (either before or after the re-issue). There is also a window of
opportunity if the same label is somehow issued in two separate contexts
and the LSR is not able to correctly recover context when it subsequently
receives  ambiguously labeled packets.

    The first window is avoidable by a robust implementation. The second
window only exists for a broken implementation.

    This is the reason why I feel we are making a big deal out of nothing
very much.

    :-)

--
Eric

neil.2.harrison@bt.com wrote:

>Loa,
>
>I was meaning in general, ie labelled pkts.  Just want to check nothing
>is being overlooked here.
>
>regards, Neil
>
>  
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Loa Andersson [mailto:loa@pi.se] 
>>Sent: 08 October 2004 11:19
>>To: Harrison,N,Neil,IKR2 R
>>Cc: ewgray@GraIyMage.com; Nick.Weeds@dataconnection.com; mpls@ietf.org
>>Subject: Re: [mpls] For your review - 
>>Issues/errors/clarifications in RFC3 036
>>
>>
>>Neil,
>>
>>are you talking about packets exchange over the TCP 
>>connection between two LDP peers, or (labeled) packets in genral?
>>
>>/Loa
>>
>>neil.2.harrison@bt.com wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>Eric,
>>><Snipped>
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>Not if the downstream router sends a label withdraw as an 
>>>>        
>>>>
>>appropriate 
>>    
>>
>>>>recovery response to getting a packet with a label that is invalid.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>Is there not a possibility that packets might end up at the wrong 
>>>destination for other (defect) reasons?  And in such a case 
>>>      
>>>
>>sending a 
>>    
>>
>>>label withdraw seems the wrong action...comments?
>>>
>>>regards, Neil
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>mpls mailing list
>>>mpls@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>-- 
>>Loa Andersson
>>
>>Principal Networking Architect
>>Acreo AB                           phone:  +46 8 632 77 14
>>Isafjordsgatan 22                  mobile: +46 739 81 21 64
>>Kista, Sweden                      email:  loa.andersson@acreo.se
>>                                            loa@pi.se
>>
>>    
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>mpls mailing list
>mpls@lists.ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>
>
>
>
>  
>
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls