Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label
Curtis Villamizar <curtis@occnc.com> Thu, 31 March 2011 11:38 UTC
Return-Path: <curtis@occnc.com>
X-Original-To: pwe3@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pwe3@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDF353A6961 for <pwe3@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 04:38:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.497
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.497 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.103, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jPAHqpQ0G6tA for <pwe3@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 04:38:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from harbor.orleans.occnc.com (harbor.orleans.occnc.com [173.9.106.135]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 010493A6947 for <pwe3@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 04:38:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from harbor.orleans.occnc.com (harbor.orleans.occnc.com [173.9.106.135]) by harbor.orleans.occnc.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id p2VBeSfh083040; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 07:40:28 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from curtis@harbor.orleans.occnc.com)
Message-Id: <201103311140.p2VBeSfh083040@harbor.orleans.occnc.com>
To: Sriganesh Kini <sriganesh.kini@ericsson.com>
From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@occnc.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 31 Mar 2011 02:17:48 PDT." <AANLkTimGJTVa42CFsj-PRcLiPLGTBhZ-t3sNRcTadHHe@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 07:40:28 -0400
Sender: curtis@occnc.com
Cc: "pwe3@ietf.org" <pwe3@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label
X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: curtis@occnc.com
List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge <pwe3.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3>, <mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pwe3>
List-Post: <mailto:pwe3@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3>, <mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 11:38:55 -0000
Sriganesh, Sasha, Loa, Dave, Would you please not top post. See inline. Curtis In message <AANLkTimGJTVa42CFsj-PRcLiPLGTBhZ-t3sNRcTadHHe@mail.gmail.com> Sriganesh Kini writes: > > Sasha, that issue with VCCV Type-3 (without CW) is not addressed by > the draft. Practically, is that a major issue ? Especially setting TTL > > 1 for SS PW is possible I guess but would be some kind of serious > operational oversight. Besides such a packet would fail some check > along the path. End to end OAM should set TTL>1 and not use VCCV Type-3. The T-PE may not have reliable information to set TTL, so in MS-PW it might be worth discouraging VCCV Type-3 except for use as a traceroute capability or to address S-PEs by node distance along the path. > Also, what I heard at the mic regarding impl results is that it > doesn't make sense to deprecate what is already deployed. Yes. But VCCV Type-3 with MS-PW is not already deployed. > Note that CC Type 1 prevents ECMP (when FAT-PW is not available). > Using GAL below PW also requires ECMP based on label hashing to ignore > reserved labels. You don't want ECMP to hash on PW payload. With CW and without fat-pw, you don't get ECMP on a PW but you do get ECMP on an LSP containing many PW. > 2011/3/31 Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>: > > Sriganesh, Curtis and all, > > IMHO and FWIW I think that the only problem with VCCV Type 3 is the > > risk of OAM packets leaking out of T-PE towards the AC (if you > > accidentally set the TTL value too high). To the best of my > > understanding the offset proposal does not solve that - or did I miss > > something? > > > > One way to solve it is to use VCCV Type 1 (clean where applicable). > > Another way would be by using GAL below the PW label (possible but > > messy). If the industry moves towards deprecating Ethernet PWs > > without CW, it becomes completely unnecessary. > > > > My 2c, > > Sasha This is the context suggesting a potential problem with VCCV Type 3. > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > >> Sriganesh Kini > >> Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 10:09 AM > >> To: curtis@occnc.com > >> Cc: pwe3@ietf.org > >> Subject: Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label > >> > >> All, > >> > >> Just an FYI that a proposal for fate-sharing PW OAM and data given in > >> draft-kini-pwe3-inband-cc-offset > >> > >> Just to summarize the proposal. > >> 1. It does not require GAL in PW. TTL expiry is used to alert the S/T- > >> PE. > >> 2. It is mainly applicable when CW is not used in the PW. > >> 3. It uses a fixed offset (negotiated between PW endpoints) after the > >> label stack before starting the OAM msg. > >> 4. The bytes between the label-stack and the fixed offset is referred > >> to as a pseudoflow header and is filled with byte-values (by the PE) > >> that represent the flow for which OAM is desired. This helps PW OAM > >> and data to fate-share even when the intermediate node looks beyond > >> label stack to do multipath forwarding decisions. > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 12:03 AM, Curtis Villamizar <curtis@occnc.com> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > Loa, Dave, Sasha, > >> > > >> > I've snipped from various posts on the thread that Sasha started. > >> See > >> > inline. > >> > > >> > In message <4D92F5D3.6080609@pi.nu> > >> > Loa Andersson writes: > >> >> > >> >> All, > >> >> > >> >> missed a nuance in Sasha subject line. > >> >> > >> >> We have two issues > >> >> > >> >> - where the GAL is placed relative to the PW label, I believe it is > >> >> necessary to have the GAL below the PW label. > >> >> > >> >> - whether the the GAL label needs to be bottom of stack or not, it > >> >> figure that this is really a discussion if it is possible to have > >> >> a FAT label below the GAL or not. I'm not sure about my > >> preferences > >> >> but I think it is possible. > >> >> > >> >> /Loa > >> > > >> > I agree with Loa's summary. Not putting GAL at the bottom may > >> confuse > >> > some LSR, but putting it above the PW label is likely to be even more > >> > problematic. > >> > > >> > > >> > In message > >> <60C093A41B5E45409A19D42CF7786DFD51D5310B53@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson > >> .se> > >> > David Allan I writes: > >> >> > >> >> It does become a new behavior, GAL with S=3D0. However the > >> combination of G= > >> >> AL being top label at the S-PE and TTL being encoded in the PW label > >> means = > >> >> that fate sharing is broken at every S-PE. Life only gets a little > >> more str= > >> >> ange if there is a FAT label as well... > >> >> > >> >> That being said, GAL as bottom label is broken in any ECMP > >> environment, whi= > >> >> ch is why GAL is a TP construct. > >> >> > >> >> my 2 cents > >> >> D > >> > > >> > Dave, > >> > > >> > If GAL is broken for ECMP, which it is, then all TP OAM is broken. > >> > If all it takes to fix it is simple then lets just fix it. > >> > > >> > This is what we'd have to do. > >> > > >> > 1) Relax the requirement that GAL be at the bottom > >> > > >> > 2) Have the ingress insert GAL in the stack immediately below the > >> > label for which the measurement is made, keeping the rest of the > >> > label stack in place. > >> > > >> > The only thing the midpoing LSR at a multipath (LAG, link bundle for > >> > MPLS) has to do is skip over the GAL when hashing, as if the GAL > >> > wasn't there. That will yield the same hash value and it will > >> > preserve fate-sharing across multipath. > >> > > >> > I prefer that we fix things rather than complain that they are > >> broken. > >> > > >> > Curtis > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > pwe3 mailing list > >> > pwe3@ietf.org > >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> - Sri > >> _______________________________________________ > >> pwe3 mailing list > >> pwe3@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 > > _______________________________________________ > > pwe3 mailing list > > pwe3@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 > > > > > > -- > - Sri > >
- Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label Daniel Cohn
- Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label Alexander Vainshtein
- [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label Loa Andersson
- Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label Sam Aldrin
- Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label David Allan I
- Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label David Allan I
- Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label Loa Andersson
- Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label Greg Mirsky
- Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label David Allan I
- Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label Greg Mirsky
- Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label Sriganesh Kini
- Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label Stewart Bryant
- Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label Sriganesh Kini
- Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label Giles Heron
- Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label Sriganesh Kini
- Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label Sriganesh Kini
- Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label Sriganesh Kini
- Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label venkatesan mahalingam
- Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label Stewart Bryant
- Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label Benjamin Niven-Jenkins
- Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label neil.2.harrison
- Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label neil.2.harrison
- Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label neil.2.harrison
- Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label Benjamin Niven-Jenkins
- Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label neil.2.harrison
- Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label Luca Martini
- Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label Luca Martini
- Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label Sam Aldrin
- Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label Luca Martini
- Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label David Allan I
- Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label Sam Aldrin
- Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label David Allan I
- Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label Sam Aldrin
- Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label Jia He
- Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label Lucy yong
- Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label Carlos Pignataro
- Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label Sriganesh Kini
- Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
- Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label Sriganesh Kini
- Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label Carlos Pignataro
- Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label Sriganesh Kini
- Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
- Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label Sriganesh Kini
- Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)