Re: [mpls] Concerns about ISD

[Tianran Zhou <[e-mail]>]

Hi,
It does not make sense to me to create a new mechanism as ISD in operators’ network, while not using existing mature BSID.
There is no sign the reinvented wheel could be better.

Tianran

From: John E Drake [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2022 12:05 AM
To: Tianran Zhou <[e-mail]>
Cc: John E Drake <jdrake=[e-mail]>; Tony Li <[e-mail]>; mpls <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Concerns about ISD

Comment inline
Sent from my iPhone


On Apr 29, 2022, at 11:17 AM, Tianran Zhou <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

[External Email. Be cautious of content]

Hi,
Comments inline.

Tianran

>
> Hi John,
>
>  If we want to reuse this for consistent design (easy for interop), how do you
> want to encode it to ISD?
>
> [JD]  That's up to a given solution to propose, but probably two LSEs
>
> ZTR> It would be interesting to know your proposal.

[JD]  As I said, the size of an NRP ID needs to be decided and any MNA solution needs propose how it is to be
encoded

ZTR> Ok, so any solution need to demonstrate how it works.

>
>
> 2. If we really worry about the MSD of SR, why not use BSID as a direct way to
> reduce the stack?
>
> [JD]  Because it can't be mandated
>
> ZTR> I am sorry, I do not understand why BSID is not applicable. What's the "
> mandated " mean here?

[JD]  MNA cannot require the use of BSIDs

ZTR> Is this an agreed requirement? In the requirement draft? I still can’t understand. On one hand, you worry about low stack depth. On the other hand, you don’t want to use an easy way to solve this problem.
[JD]  I don’t think it’s realistic to tell a network operator that they have to deploy BSID in order to deploy MNA.  Also, I don’t think it’s a good solution became a label stack of BSIDs may still be too large and the node advertising the BSID is going to expand the the label stack with the path SIDS so the nodes on the path will have to deal with a large label stack.



>
> Tianran