[Pals] draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-for-gal and RFC6790
Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com> Wed, 17 December 2014 16:04 UTC
Return-Path: <stbryant@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BC5A1A8AEC for <pals@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 08:04:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 FGigRuEns8If for <pals@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 08:04:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (aer-iport-3.cisco.com [173.38.203.53]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A1AC81A8ADB for <pals@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 08:04:34 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2446; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1418832276; x=1420041876; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:mime-version:to:subject; bh=JCHUpQO8f1bRTIe2cm5xOxBzqnx56Ms7gpvEzh3Yvpk=; b=ZWTcOf2oYNCaehREaPImTPokY+huMjVf1ya6aHap4VmMA+Vpd3nlG2du 6oPSTCz/tAHQKY5npmg4r9+fnXpqDxyAeGgem2vO3Q6B/C9Im/MJZ4WvZ E0GCGB9JQ/QRQfs3h9yOmmju607LdVytWTfJDernUM3m2um+3vSJTD8b0 Y=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,594,1413244800"; d="scan'208,217";a="273680469"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-3.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 Dec 2014 16:04:34 +0000
Received: from [10.61.196.146] ([10.61.196.146]) by aer-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id sBHG4W1w002118; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 16:04:33 GMT
Message-ID: <5491A992.7060008@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 16:04:34 +0000
From: Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "pals@ietf.org" <pals@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------090409060900020306060006"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pals/R0sOT8rfhIcnprgLlHiI3OwwhVw
Subject: [Pals] draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-for-gal and RFC6790
X-BeenThere: pals@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: stbryant@cisco.com
List-Id: "Pseudowire And LDP-enabled Services dicussion list." <pals.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pals>, <mailto:pals-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pals/>
List-Post: <mailto:pals@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pals-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pals>, <mailto:pals-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 16:04:43 -0000
We said at IETF91
EL and GAL
John Drake: 6790 says EL and ELI is associated withthe transport LSP so
by the time you get to GAL they are done.
The WG agreed to stay quiet on the topic (I.e., "none of our business")
However I am gnawed by the need for precision and have included the
following text in the manageability section:
Network operators should note that the presence of the GAL may cause the PW packet and associated VCCV packets to be subjected to different ECMP choices and thus not fate share. This effect is not present in networks that support [RFC6790] since reserved labels are ignored during ECMP path selection.
Does anyone think that this is incorrect, or that it should be excluded
from the text as per the discussion at the PALS WG session?
I have stated that ELI/EL is out of scope.
- Stewart
- [Pals] draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-for-gal and RFC6790 Stewart Bryant
- Re: [Pals] draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-for-gal and RFC67… Alexander Vainshtein