Re: [sfc] [mpls] Request for comments on draft-malis-mpls-sfc-encapsulation-00.txt

Andy,

NSH has an OAM mechanism which you would use for OAM at that level.

The only time you would want to use a GAL is OAM to the SFF itself.

If we think that it is useful to apply OAM between an SFF pair we could 
use a GAL.

If we think that it is useful to do ECMP, we might also put an EL/ELI at 
BoS. We could also do it with a FAT label. I am not sure what is better.

Best regards

Stewart

On 24/06/2018 17:29, Andrew G. Malis wrote:
> Sasha,
>
> Yes, thanks for asking, we can add that to the next revision. The 
> intent is that the NSH label operates similar to a PW or VPN label, so 
> whatever applies to them should apply to the NSH label as well.
>
> And thanks for reading the draft!
>
> Cheers,
> Andy
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 11:29 AM, Alexander Vainshtein 
> <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com 
> <mailto:Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>> wrote:
>
>     Andy and all,
>
>     I’ve read the draft and I have a question regarding position of
>     the SFF label in the label stack.
>
>     The draft states the SFF label is located at the bottom of the
>     stack and immediately followed by the NSH header.
>
>     I wonder if it is possible to have some special purpose labels to
>     follow the SFF label. The relevant example could be GAL (RFC 5586)
>     followed by the GACH for OAM purposes.
>
>     RFC 7708 has allowed this for PW labels which originally also have
>     been defined as BoS only
>
>     Regards, and lots of thanks in advance,
>
>     Sasha
>
>     Office: +972-39266302
>
>     Cell: +972-549266302
>
>     Email: Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com
>     <mailto:Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>
>
>     *From:*mpls [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org
>     <mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org>] *On Behalf Of *Andrew G. Malis
>     *Sent:* Tuesday, June 19, 2018 6:14 PM
>     *To:* mpls@ietf.org <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>; sfc@ietf.org
>     <mailto:sfc@ietf.org>
>     *Subject:* [mpls] Request for comments on
>     draft-malis-mpls-sfc-encapsulation-00.txt
>
>     I’ve just uploaded
>     https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-malis-mpls-sfc-encapsulation-00
>     <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-malis-mpls-sfc-encapsulation-00> .
>     It’s a short draft that discusses how to carry SFC packets that
>     include the NSH over MPLS from one SFF to the next, so that SFFs
>     that support the NSH can be connected via MPLS. It also includes
>     the ability for MPLS nodes to support more than one SFF. Comments
>     are appreciated!
>
>     Thanks,
>
>     Andy
>
>
>     ___________________________________________________________________________
>
>     This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and
>     contains information which is
>     CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If you
>     have received this
>     transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, phone or fax,
>     and then delete the original
>     and all copies thereof.
>     ___________________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sfc mailing list
> sfc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc