IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [PWE3] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe3-endpoint-fast-protection-01 - RFC4447

Yimin Shen <yshen@juniper.net> Tue, 05 August 2014 14:53 UTC

Return-Path: <yshen@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7915E1B2852; Tue, 5 Aug 2014 07:53:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 nwQABhmy5u-L; Tue, 5 Aug 2014 07:53:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1blp0183.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2215E1B27F6; Tue, 5 Aug 2014 07:53:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BY2PR05MB728.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.223.25) by BY2PR05MB728.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.223.25) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.995.14; Tue, 5 Aug 2014 14:53:49 +0000
Received: from BY2PR05MB728.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.223.25]) by BY2PR05MB728.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.223.25]) with mapi id 15.00.0995.014; Tue, 5 Aug 2014 14:53:49 +0000
From: Yimin Shen <yshen@juniper.net>
To: Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>, "stbryant@cisco.com" <stbryant@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [PWE3] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe3-endpoint-fast-protection-01 - RFC4447
Thread-Index: AQHPsLKAX28iK6GR00WfEHEZOVjN8pvCCaWAgAAAMWA=
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2014 14:53:49 +0000
Message-ID: <35ea5a386fa84b498eaf682370f7c6d4@BY2PR05MB728.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <53D7B569.60400@cisco.com> <c6469ff0a32a405e833e7989a90ed6e6@BY2PR05MB728.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <53E0B85B.8060707@cisco.com> <eba24c5998984ec18d19cc85b456944b@AM3PR03MB612.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com> <53E0DE3E.5030901@cisco.com> <9696d0db139d46ffaad7be11340215e8@AM3PR03MB612.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <9696d0db139d46ffaad7be11340215e8@AM3PR03MB612.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [66.129.241.10]
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:
x-forefront-prvs: 02945962BD
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(6009001)(51694002)(252514010)(189002)(199002)(164054003)(51704005)(377454003)(13464003)(2656002)(77982001)(79102001)(80022001)(105586002)(95666004)(101416001)(66066001)(64706001)(106116001)(99286002)(106356001)(4396001)(81542001)(20776003)(99396002)(74662001)(74316001)(74502001)(85306004)(92566001)(46102001)(21056001)(76576001)(76176999)(31966008)(87936001)(19580395003)(93886004)(81342001)(83322001)(50986999)(83072002)(54356999)(33646002)(85852003)(107046002)(86362001)(76482001)(19580405001)(24736002)(108616003); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:BY2PR05MB728; H:BY2PR05MB728.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; LANG:en;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pwe3/FGoNvnhrzKtLj7DMbCUcnjv0SUI
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, pwe3 <pwe3@ietf.org>, "pwe3-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <pwe3-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [PWE3] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe3-endpoint-fast-protection-01 - RFC4447
X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Pseudowire Emulation Edge to Edge <pwe3.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Tue, 05 Aug 2014 14:53:57 -0000

Hi Stewart, Sasha,

Every PE allocates PW labels from per-platform label space. This draft doesn't change this. In addition, a protector maintains a separate label table for each primary/protected PE that it protects. This label table contains the PW labels allocated by the primary/protected PE from its own "per-platform" label space. Hope this clarifies it.


Thanks,

/Yimin


-----Original Message-----
From: Alexander Vainshtein [mailto:Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2014 10:00 AM
To: stbryant@cisco.com
Cc: mpls@ietf.org; pwe3; pwe3-chairs@tools.ietf.org; Yimin Shen
Subject: RE: [PWE3] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe3-endpoint-fast-protection-01 - RFC4447

Stewart,
I fully agree with you that using PW labels from a  label space that is not a per-platform one requires an explicit update to RFC 4447.
My comment on this point has been triggered by your saying that you *think* that RFC 4447 explicitly requires per-platform label space.
Just wanted to clarify that this is indeed the case.

Regards,
       Sasha 
Email: Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com
Mobile: 054-9266302


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:stbryant@cisco.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2014 4:38 PM
> To: Alexander Vainshtein; Yimin Shen
> Cc: mpls@ietf.org; pwe3; pwe3-chairs@tools.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [PWE3] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe3-endpoint-fast-
> protection-01 - RFC4447
> 
> 
> >>> [1] This draft is completely based on the PWE3 and the MS-PW
> >> architecture. It is also based on RFC 5331 " MPLS Upstream Label
> >> Assignment and Context-Specific Label Space". So ideally readers
> >> should be familiar with that RFC.
> >> As far as I can see context labels have not been introduced into the
> >> PWE3 architecture. There is some reference to their use for P2MP PWs,
> >> but not in the P2P case. Indeed I think that RFC4447 notes explicitly
> >> that in the case where the configuration of PWs is signaled by LDP
> >> the platform label space must be used. The least that you need to do
> >> is to update RFC4447.
> >>
> > [[Sasha]] yes, RFC 4447 explicitly requires the PW labels to be allocated
> from the per-platform label space.
> > And according to RFC 5331 per-platform label space is a special case of the
> label context.
> However RRC5331 does not update RFC4447, so it must be assumed that the
> original definition of per-platform label space applies to PWs.
> 
> - Stewart
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email