Re: [PWE3] [mpls] Seeking feedback/comments on I-D "LDP Typed Wildcard PW FEC Elements"

Carlos Pignataro <cpignata@cisco.com> Thu, 19 May 2011 21:36 UTC

Return-Path: <cpignata@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 DDCF8E0719; Thu, 19 May 2011 14:36:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -109.547
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.547 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.052, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 PgXRBcU4um1I; Thu, 19 May 2011 14:36:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from av-tac-rtp.cisco.com (unknown [64.102.19.198]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF366E06AE; Thu, 19 May 2011 14:36:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned
Received: from rooster.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-rtp.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p4JLafSD010076; Thu, 19 May 2011 17:36:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [64.102.157.109] (dhcp-64-102-157-109.cisco.com [64.102.157.109]) by rooster.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p4JLafb7018826; Thu, 19 May 2011 17:36:41 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <4DD58D69.2030701@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 17:36:41 -0400
From: Carlos Pignataro <cpignata@cisco.com>
Organization: cisco Systems, Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.24) Gecko/20100228 Thunderbird/2.0.0.24 Mnenhy/0.7.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Kamran Raza <skraza@cisco.com>
References: <C9E84560.19AC9%skraza@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <C9E84560.19AC9%skraza@cisco.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1
X-Face: *3w8NvnQ|kS~V{&{U}$?G9U9EJQ8p9)O[1[1F'1i>XIc$5FR!hdAIf5}'Xu-3`^Z']h0J* ccB'fl/XJYR[+, Z+jj`4%06nd'y9[ln&ScJT5S+O18e^
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Thu, 19 May 2011 21:36:44 -0000

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.

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).

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.