Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label
venkatesan mahalingam <venkatflex@gmail.com> Thu, 31 March 2011 19:43 UTC
Return-Path: <venkatflex@gmail.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 A42DD28C0FB for <pwe3@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 12:43:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.276
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.276 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.277, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 mnSPla6urW+s for <pwe3@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 12:43:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vw0-f44.google.com (mail-vw0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD4823A6949 for <pwe3@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 12:43:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vws12 with SMTP id 12so2531002vws.31 for <pwe3@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 12:45:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=F1rgl9wFbsdaT3WWR2Lu0ANoREVntd9qtCD7bgbSIzE=; b=mAIQCOIPCf/rsIWPQM06Eys/EErxqpXwRc/o1E9eT0bvjRybjFmr4krDhr2GWzakvU njLXy7V0EwSmFuj5Dx3u4ya+bDyCTIVSqF1Pv6vSHI9nygQi75Fr1U/1PK9VPIDWY0bi EtYwUzB/LEKGjBjAjVo6z1ox1MlBMVH6vSKtU=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=EdjETF9Fi2YqyPCmmsprlkJuwfp+j+1Kh+7KGzCCu9lay/ZvjORzx3asqTokCpPG1b 2/v6yF5CA9oJm8t7UeQftlCVAVNneXiZ4JPGsdaB/FnsAtbNiRPfaaoV8PSQSUsXSX1h HAbtihn9QzTAVbcThkiFPFhz0XqL3znHJM/DA=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.92.161 with SMTP id cn1mr4175304vdb.253.1301600731169; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 12:45:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.164.230 with HTTP; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 12:45:31 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 15:45:31 -0400
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=ZirXML6gepT2pJGXgmxi3Y4C-X8aT1uxMGThO@mail.gmail.com>
From: venkatesan mahalingam <venkatflex@gmail.com>
To: sriganesh.kini@ericsson.com, pwe3@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="20cf3071ced8388408049fcc8931"
Subject: Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label
X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
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 19:43:54 -0000
Hi, >> > 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. >> >> When the PW payload is IP, the hashing it for ECMP is useful (If the >> payload is not IP then use CW). FAT-PW may not be present in all >> deployments. > > I really don't know that any PW are carrying IP. That was not in the > survey. L3VPN would be carrying IP. Why are we very much concerned about the ECMP in MPLS-TP networks? I think, as per the RFC-5960, Equal-Cost Multi-Path (ECMP) load-balancing MUST NOT be performed on an MPLS-TP LSP. Thanks, Venkat. Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label ------------------------------ - *To*: curtis at occnc.com <curtis@DOMAIN.HIDDEN> - *Subject*: Re: [PWE3] GAL above and below the PW label - *From*: Sriganesh Kini <sriganesh.kini at ericsson.com<sriganesh.kini@DOMAIN.HIDDEN> > - *Date*: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 06:35:55 -0700 - *Cc*: "pwe3 at ietf.org <pwe3@DOMAIN.HIDDEN>" <pwe3 at ietf.org<pwe3@DOMAIN.HIDDEN> > - *Delivered-to*: pwe3 at core3.amsl.com <pwe3@DOMAIN.HIDDEN> - *Dkim-signature*: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=A+vOatCHfOjZApN0E5yyinhuXIRZkYjTT7i6/+y5GRI=; b=OFt+lkWg+fovMGSRWve+7FsSjiqfq272VYgTC7TlwERM0yzysYgCBAsCB5m3odhT2N 0EyO74FE/X6wILVxasY1LH8mMxD6D392XLS8GRfnqIIqGnJxX2Yf6PTJzDN+9wZtq6dd w/NhWavvVJM7iCESsjJF38Id8YgUq+z95WMxg= - *Domainkey-signature*: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=CvmfIfuKmyWajzqum1g4zmHnattN67oLkrAHwMKMO45NU6eQ9B4lC0or/0Coow2naZ d5nqj+Ulcwo221mbSGynICRBrHshs8ppnDeGatxlk2Mu4ot75YHcVk39xPW1szv9WbUN A9+fjVEqqWZyJO4pcmbHXXv2ydnhHLn3r9dXk= - *In-reply-to*: <201103311249.p2VCnU9Y085450 at harbor.orleans.occnc.com<201103311249.p2VCnU9Y085450@DOMAIN.HIDDEN> > - *List-archive*: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pwe3> - *List-help*: <mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=help<pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=help> > - *List-id*: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge <pwe3.ietf.org> - *List-post*: <mailto:pwe3@ietf.org <pwe3@ietf.org>> - *List-subscribe*: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3>, < mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe<pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> > - *List-unsubscribe*: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3>, < mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe<pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> > - *References*: <AANLkTi=fuSg1iBy+jz0SvsfNpGrd-=32p+KMV7Q=hOSv at mail.gmail.com<AANLkTi%3DfuSg1iBy%2Bjz0SvsfNpGrd-%3D32p%2BKMV7Q%3DhOSv@DOMAIN.HIDDEN>> <201103311249.p2VCnU9Y085450 at harbor.orleans.occnc.com<201103311249.p2VCnU9Y085450@DOMAIN.HIDDEN> > - *Sender*: sriganeshkini at gmail.com <sriganeshkini@DOMAIN.HIDDEN> ------------------------------ inline On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 5:49 AM, Curtis Villamizar <curtis at occnc.com> wrote: > > In message <AANLkTi=fuSg1iBy+jz0SvsfNpGrd-=32p+KMV7Q=hOSv at mail.gmail.com> > Sriganesh Kini writes: >> >> See inline >> >> On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 4:40 AM, Curtis Villamizar <curtis at occnc.com> wrote: >> > >> > Sriganesh, Sasha, Loa, Dave, >> > >> > Would you please not top post. See inline. >> > >> > Curtis >> > >> > In message <AANLkTimGJTVa42CFsj-PRcLiPLGTBhZ-t3sNRcTadHHe at 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. >> >> If there is indeed a concern of TTL exceeding number of segments (with >> Type-3 and no CW), the same concern would apply when tracing. So >> tracing would be impossible. > > traceroute stops when it hits the egress. That is exactly the point I am trying to make. Why would the TTL from that information not be reliable for other OAM operations ? > >> >> 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. >> >> I am not aware of the survey addressing this. > > AFAIK Type-1 is being used, but I could be wrong. Maybe someone who > has implemented and knows of a deployment or someone who has deployed > can reply so we don't need another survey. > >> >> 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. >> >> When the PW payload is IP, the hashing it for ECMP is useful (If the >> payload is not IP then use CW). FAT-PW may not be present in all >> deployments. > > I really don't know that any PW are carrying IP. That was not in the > survey. L3VPN would be carrying IP. IPLS would be another case. > >> >> 2011/3/31 Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein at 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 at ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces <pwe3-bounces> at ietf.org] On Behalf Of >> >> >> Sriganesh Kini >> >> >> Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 10:09 AM >> >> >> To: curtis at occnc.com >> >> >> Cc: pwe3 at 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 at occnc.com> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Loa, Dave, Sasha, >> >> >> > >> >> >> > I've snipped from various posts on the thread that Sasha started. >> >> >> See >> >> >> > inline. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > In message <4D92F5D3.6080609 at 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 at 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 at ietf.org >> >> >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> - Sri >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> >> pwe3 mailing list >> >> >> pwe3 at ietf.org >> >> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> >> > pwe3 mailing list >> >> > pwe3 at 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)