Re: [OSPF] WG Last Call for "Signalling ELC using OSPF"

["Acee Lindem (acee)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Bruno,

From: Bruno Decraene <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Monday, November 7, 2016 at 6:43 AM
To: Acee Lindem <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, OSPF WG List <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: RE: [OSPF] WG Last Call for "Signalling ELC using OSPF"

Hi authors, all,

Please find below some comments on the RLDC definition.

1) I’d like to see a more specific definition of RLDC.
e.g. load-balancing hashing could be done based on (hashing):
-a- a (stack of) N  “regular” MPLS labels (i.e. there is no ELI in this stack)
-b- the (IP) header below the stack of N  labels
-c- the EL label in the stack of N labels (i.e. there is one ELI in this stack)

I’d like the specification to be clear on the applicability of the RLDC. Does it apply on these 3 cases, on only a subset?
Personally, I’d like at least a and c be in scope of the RLDC definition, such that an ingress with limited push capability could have enough information to decide that it could avoid pushing an ELI,EL pair if the stack of MPLS labels that it pushes has enough entropy within the first RLDC labels.


I think that the signaling document should reference section 4 of https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label-04.txt. However, I don’t think -b- is covered there.


2) Current text seems to limit the use of the RLDC to the insertion of a _second_ EL. Why is the RLD not applicable to the first EL?


§1.  Introduction

“This capability, referred to

   as Readable Label Deepth Capability (RLDC) can be used by ingress

   LSRs to determine whether it's necessary to insert an EL for a given

   LSP tunnel in the case where there has already been at least one EL

   in the label stack [I-D.ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-03#ref-I-D.ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label>]”



§6 Usage and Applicability

“The RLDC is used by ingress LSRs

   to determine whether it's necessary to insert an EL for a given LSP

   tunnel in the case where there has already been at least one EL in

   the label stack. »




I think that this is an unnecessary restriction of the RLDC usage. Indeed, an ingress with a limited capability in term of label push, could be forced to push a single EL label. It should be able to use the RLDC info in order to choose the best location for the EL, even if it pushes a single one.
But both sentences seems to restrict RLDC usage for the additional EL push, not the first one.

I would tend to agree.

Thanks,
Acee





Thanks,
Regards,
--Bruno

From: OSPF [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2016 5:46 PM
To: OSPF WG List
Subject: [OSPF] WG Last Call for "Signalling ELC using OSPF"

This begins the WG last call for  "Signalling ELC using OSPF”, https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-03.txt. Please review the document and send comments to this list prior to Nov 27th, 2016. Due to the IETF week, the last call period is going to be 3 weeks rather than usual 2 weeks.

Thanks,
Acee

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.