Re: [PWE3] [mpls] Seeking feedback/comments on I-D "LDP Typed Wildcard PW FEC Elements"
Kamran Raza <skraza@cisco.com> Fri, 20 May 2011 04:36 UTC
Return-Path: <skraza@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6B84E06C2; Thu, 19 May 2011 21:36:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t39e5oi9aTnT; Thu, 19 May 2011 21:36:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B40AE0659; Thu, 19 May 2011 21:36:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=skraza@cisco.com; l=4751; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1305866174; x=1307075774; h=date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=qEED/zm9b5HTnCGm/p0Njcp6EyvoQm/qEezvfb98OJI=; b=WWAFSMIuku6hci86icUoQAMpIuq5VREaFYo5LwlEBuIOpwDUKUwjo24n EMKOKRT6FVbYYJ+Dzrxmau+oRQdHgXEUrb/PvR400ziJzkuR6z6PaMzYx 6KHJtanQIae9F96wUpVN+ljKPujGVSDNZp8VKBO9rsZpYWBAPhLKP9nMS M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEABLv1U2tJXG+/2dsb2JhbACmGXeIcJ93nX6DLoJrBJARhDiKWQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,240,1304294400"; d="scan'208";a="319783166"
Received: from rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com ([173.37.113.190]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 May 2011 04:36:13 +0000
Received: from xbh-rcd-201.cisco.com (xbh-rcd-201.cisco.com [72.163.62.200]) by rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p4K4aDuW004474; Fri, 20 May 2011 04:36:13 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-103.cisco.com ([72.163.62.145]) by xbh-rcd-201.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 19 May 2011 23:36:13 -0500
Received: from 10.86.255.179 ([10.86.255.179]) by XMB-RCD-103.cisco.com ([72.163.62.145]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Fri, 20 May 2011 04:36:13 +0000
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.29.0.110113
Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 00:36:11 -0400
From: Kamran Raza <skraza@cisco.com>
To: Carlos Pignataro <cpignata@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <C9FB67FB.1A278%skraza@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [mpls] Seeking feedback/comments on I-D "LDP Typed Wildcard PW FEC Elements"
Thread-Index: AcwWp3G18RuCplitn0CNPIK0G1yDIA==
In-Reply-To: <4DD58D69.2030701@cisco.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 May 2011 04:36:13.0416 (UTC) FILETIME=[73269680:01CC16A7]
Cc: mpls@ietf.org, pwe3@ietf.org, andrew.g.malis@one.verizon.com
Subject: Re: [PWE3] [mpls] Seeking feedback/comments on I-D "LDP Typed Wildcard PW FEC Elements"
X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Pseudo Wires 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: Fri, 20 May 2011 04:36:15 -0000
Hi Carlos, Thanks for the review. Please see inline [skraza] On 11-05-19 5:36 PM, "Carlos Pignataro" <cpignata@cisco.com> wrote: > Hi Kamran, > > I think the extension of an LDP Typed-Wildcard for the PWid and > Generalized PWid FEC Elements is most useful. > > I have some questions/comments about the document: > > 1. The Typed-wildcard FECs as defined in the document apply to all FECs > of a given type (all 0x80 or all 0x81). In contrast, RFC 5918 > defines the typed-wildcard for the Prefix FEC Element with finer > granularity, including also the AFI. Would it make sense to include > in this case the PW type as part of both typed-wildcard FECs? I > think that this document can either define the PW Type of 0x0000 as > all-types for the typed wildcard, or (better) use the existing > 0x7FFF Wildcard PW Type to provide the currently expected all-types > functionality. [skraza]: Typed Wildcard for Prefix FEC Element uses "AFI" mainly because "AFI" is an integral part of basic "Prefix FEC Element". Prefix FEC Element is a single type defined to include both IPv4/IPv6 prefixes, and hence AFI field is needed to distinguish b/w IPv4 Prefix and IPV6 prefix element. In case of PW, we already have different types "0x80", "0x81", "0x82" for different type of PW FEC Elements. But, I agree that we can use finer control using fields like pw-type (with wildcard pw-type defined in rfc4863). For FEC 0x80: we can use pw-type based wildcard; For FEC 0x81: we can use pw-type/AGI-type based wildcard; So, the Typed Wildcard PW FECs will be defined as: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Typed Wcard | Type = PWid | Len = 2 | PW-Type | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ [PW-Type 0x7FFF: All-Types] 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Typed Wcard |Type = Gen PWid| Len = 3 | PW-Type | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ... | AGI-Type | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- [PW-Type 0x7FFF: All-Types] [AGI-Type ?? (0xFF): All-Types] BTW, since "0" is not defined/available for both pw-type and agi-type fields, we can pick "0" to mean "all-types" for the consistency reasons. FEC 0x82 [P2MP PW FEC] Typed Wildcard will be similar to FEC 0x81's. > > 2. I think there might be a bit of overlap with the Group ID from the > PWid FEC and with the PW Grouping TLV. I think that the document > could discuss why the typed-wildcard is also needed (e.g., > simplicity and different grouping). > [skraza]: Sure, will add a section in the next rev to clarify this. > I think this is a useful doc. > > I also have some editorials that I will unicast. > > Thanks, > > -- Carlos. > > On 5/5/2011 12:15 PM, Kamran Raza wrote: >> >> >> We had presented "LDP Typed Wildcard PW FEC Elements" I-D at IETF79 and >> IETF80 [http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-raza-pwe3-pw-typed-wc-fec-00] >> which defines LDP Typed Wildcard FEC elements for PW FECs types (FEC128 >> PW-Id, and FEC 129 Generalized PW-Id). >> >> We (the authors) are seeking more feedback from the mailing list, and would >> be grateful if you could review the document and post comments on the >> mailing list. >> >> I-D Abstract: >> An extension to the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) defines the >> general notion of a "Typed Wildcard Forwarding Equivalence Class >> (FEC) Element". This can be used when it is desired to request all >> label bindings for a given type of FEC Element, or to release or >> withdraw all label bindings for a given type of FEC element. >> However, a typed wildcard FEC element must be individually defined >> for each type of FEC element. This specification defines the typed >> wildcard FEC elements for the Pseudowire Identifier (PW Id) and >> Generalized Pseudowire Identifier (Gen. PW Id) FEC types. >> >> [P.S: This I-D was previously submitted as L2VPN WG doc >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-raza-l2vpn-pw-typed-wc-fec-01, but was >> later resubmitted to PWE3 WG] >> >> Thanks. -- Syed Kamran Raza Technical Leader, SPRSG IOS-XR Routing (MPLS) Cisco Systems, Inc., Kanata, ON, K2K 3E8, Canada Ph: +1 (613) 254-4520 http://www.cisco.com
- [PWE3] Seeking feedback/comments on I-D "LDP Type… Kamran Raza
- Re: [PWE3] [mpls] Seeking feedback/comments on I-… Carlos Pignataro
- Re: [PWE3] [mpls] Seeking feedback/comments on I-… Kamran Raza