IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Pals] Alia Atlas' Yes on draft-ietf-pals-vccv-for-gal-05: (with COMMENT)

Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> Thu, 17 September 2015 17:56 UTC

Return-Path: <akatlas@gmail.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 2D80B1B300F; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 10:56:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 WFRGbCZyfojs; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 10:56:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-x231.google.com (mail-ob0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2BBEE1A6F3B; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 10:56:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by obbzf10 with SMTP id zf10so19428625obb.2; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 10:56:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=ZRJ8IB2Ce4MWEYF5NARThE6rZut3rtkXEpMyRAowNgk=; b=z8egowW0WwfPVr6eLJOidsxkRHfW6NI6sdJDeoc+YyaZWlnRrszmmVZ6SFytSXhIpp 8KxGQ/80YIMyRYoZTQSZ/+7tIPT+qFCrARCRCxA+rG/akAKSgl6nhoWJfbjF9PYx5WH0 7RxRxLRIxT5nMZ5vTUTV88HMMwnUbwS8S1zhDCyv0gtr+x+0jPNXzHL/BH9Be6nyrVcl tW17QL4zE3qY0kwAyKtqvkDvBl2iSovvoLNffBtKb9EYcjGwTu8XMz2VXfJt7nR6lWVV TQRwV6Jmn1AB8KVNU5azDu/AvMVOw/bAzz+deEMs/NCzaSjlmFrGI1ZS7XScAU9kHzcs cfDQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.220.227 with SMTP id pz3mr393873oec.13.1442512570296; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 10:56:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.60.55.170 with HTTP; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 10:56:10 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <55FAE0A8.8010709@cisco.com>
References: <20150916152241.19554.14958.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <55F9A5AA.5030907@cisco.com> <CAG4d1rc+YYoLw=La1t7+WCohuxQ7njsjU9vPi=Hxq2-+Vdeecw@mail.gmail.com> <55FAB657.5050501@cisco.com> <CAG4d1rdBDKeGwGiWm+MNtQdUEXAuJDv0p56unTtA9r1RV6Qmuw@mail.gmail.com> <55FAE0A8.8010709@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 13:56:10 -0400
Message-ID: <CAG4d1redpyeCp9CdFX3f4WffO3f7oHwGK=B6E0P0MovaKXUAEg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
To: stbryant <stbryant@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11367cca562f79051ff52127"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pals/aeaeB_luiq3L-G1d0I6_JSs46LE>
Cc: Matt Bocci <matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com>, draft-ietf-pals-vccv-for-gal@ietf.org, draft-ietf-pals-vccv-for-gal.ad@ietf.org, draft-ietf-pals-vccv-for-gal.shepherd@ietf.org, pals-chairs@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, pals@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Pals] Alia Atlas' Yes on draft-ietf-pals-vccv-for-gal-05: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: pals@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 17:56:13 -0000

On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com> wrote:

> Hi Alia
>
> How about:
>
> Where the LSP used by the PW is subject to Equal-Cost Multi-path (ECMP)
> load balancing, a problem arises if any LSR on that LSP treats special
> purpose labels as ordinary labels in its
> ECMP selection method. In these circumstances the inclusion of a GAL
> following the PW LSE can cause the OAM packet to take a different path
> through the network from the corresponding PW data packets. If the
> LSP traverses such equipment and this behaviour is not acceptable,
> then an alternative VCCV type needs to be used. The method of excluding
> special purpose labels from the ECMP next hop decision is described in
> [RFC7325].


As I suggested, I'd flip what the default should be.

If you aren't happy with that, I would prefer it a bit stronger.

"The requirement to not include special-purpose labels in the
load-balancing decision
is described in "MPLS Forwarding Compliance and Performance
Requirements"[RFC7325].
For equipment that conforms to this, the VCCV type4 traffic will follow the
corresponding
PW data packets."

Regards,
Alia

- Stewart
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email