Re: [Status] 答复: fwd: New Version Notification for draft-xu-rtgwg-global-label-adv-00.txt
Hannes Gredler <hannes@juniper.net> Thu, 25 July 2013 08:20 UTC
Return-Path: <hannes@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: status@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: status@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B387521F99B0 for <status@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 01:20:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.241
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.241 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.226, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_SUB_ENC_UTF8=0.152, UNRESOLVED_TEMPLATE=3.132]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 45hBA2KbfxyL for <status@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 01:20:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from co9outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (co9ehsobe005.messaging.microsoft.com [207.46.163.28]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DBC721F937E for <status@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 01:20:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail159-co9-R.bigfish.com (10.236.132.240) by CO9EHSOBE028.bigfish.com (10.236.130.91) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.22; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 08:20:19 +0000
Received: from mail159-co9 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail159-co9-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FCED260096 for <status@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 08:20:19 +0000 (UTC)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:66.129.224.52; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:P-EMF03-SAC.jnpr.net; RD:none; EFVD:NLI
X-SpamScore: -29
X-BigFish: VPS-29(z3e12hzbb2dI98dI9371Ic89bh1432I72dMdb82hzz1f42h208ch1ee6h1de0h1fdah2073h1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ah1fc6hzz1de098h1033IL17326ah1de097h1de096h8275dhz2fh2a8h683h839h93fhd25he5bhf0ah1288h12a5h12a9h12bdh137ah139eh13b6h1441h1504h1537h162dh1631h1662h1758h1898h18e1h1946h19b5h19ceh1ad9h1b0ah1d0ch1d2eh1d3fh1dfeh1dffh1e23h1155h)
Received-SPF: pass (mail159-co9: domain of juniper.net designates 66.129.224.52 as permitted sender) client-ip=66.129.224.52; envelope-from=hannes@juniper.net; helo=P-EMF03-SAC.jnpr.net ; SAC.jnpr.net ;
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report-Untrusted: CIP:157.56.242.197; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); (null); H:BL2PRD0512HT001.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; R:internal; EFV:INT
Received: from mail159-co9 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail159-co9 (MessageSwitch) id 1374740417309750_1048; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 08:20:17 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from CO9EHSMHS024.bigfish.com (unknown [10.236.132.249]) by mail159-co9.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4783124004B for <status@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 08:20:17 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from P-EMF03-SAC.jnpr.net (66.129.224.52) by CO9EHSMHS024.bigfish.com (10.236.130.34) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.227.3; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 08:20:13 +0000
Received: from P-CLDFE01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.59) by P-EMF03-SAC.jnpr.net (172.24.192.19) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.146.0; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 01:20:13 -0700
Received: from o365mail.juniper.net (207.17.137.149) by o365mail.juniper.net (172.24.192.59) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.146.0; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 01:20:13 -0700
Received: from DB8EHSOBE002.bigfish.com (213.199.154.186) by o365mail.juniper.net (207.17.137.149) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.146.0; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 01:24:32 -0700
Received: from mail95-db8-R.bigfish.com (10.174.8.228) by DB8EHSOBE002.bigfish.com (10.174.4.65) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.22; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 08:20:09 +0000
Received: from mail95-db8 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail95-db8-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D73358C0099 for <status@ietf.org.FOPE.CONNECTOR.OVERRIDE>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 08:20:09 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail95-db8 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail95-db8 (MessageSwitch) id 1374740407732928_9281; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 08:20:07 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from DB8EHSMHS023.bigfish.com (unknown [10.174.8.232]) by mail95-db8.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A30966A0047; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 08:20:07 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from BL2PRD0512HT001.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (157.56.242.197) by DB8EHSMHS023.bigfish.com (10.174.4.33) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.227.3; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 08:20:07 +0000
Received: from [172.26.200.249] (193.110.54.36) by pod51010.outlook.com (10.255.233.34) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.329.3; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 08:20:05 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
From: Hannes Gredler <hannes@juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE081D8C55@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 10:20:00 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <5AF8B30E-E460-480B-83AF-0FBA4A367409@juniper.net>
References: <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE081D6FDB@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com> <51E90059.1090701@cisco.com> <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE081D7077@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com> <51E9112E.6020803@cisco.com> <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE081D73A1@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com> <51ED124A.7030204@cisco.com> <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE081D80C8@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com> <48BE96C3-7665-4441-A6DE-FA139F78D0F7@juniper.net> <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE081D8C55@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com>
To: Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283)
X-Originating-IP: [193.110.54.36]
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn%
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%12219$Dn%RASZUK.NET$RO%2$TLS%5$FQDN%onpremiseedge-1018244.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%o365mail.juniper.net
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%12219$Dn%CISCO.COM$RO%2$TLS%5$FQDN%onpremiseedge-1018244.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%o365mail.juniper.net
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%12219$Dn%HUAWEI.COM$RO%2$TLS%5$FQDN%onpremiseedge-1018244.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%o365mail.juniper.net
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%12219$Dn%IETF.ORG$RO%2$TLS%5$FQDN%onpremiseedge-1018244.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%o365mail.juniper.net
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn%
Cc: "status@ietf.org" <status@ietf.org>, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>, Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Status] 答复: fwd: New Version Notification for draft-xu-rtgwg-global-label-adv-00.txt
X-BeenThere: status@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." <status.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/status>, <mailto:status-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/status>
List-Post: <mailto:status@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:status-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/status>, <mailto:status-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 08:20:46 -0000
On Jul 25, 2013, at 10:07 AM, Xuxiaohu wrote: > Hi Hannes, > >> -----邮件原件----- >> 发件人: Hannes Gredler [mailto:hannes@juniper.net] >> 发送时间: 2013年7月25日 15:40 >> 收件人: Xuxiaohu >> 抄送: Peter Psenak; status@ietf.org; Robert Raszuk >> 主题: Re: [Status] fwd: New Version Notification for >> draft-xu-rtgwg-global-label-adv-00.txt >> >> xuxiaohu, >> >> the best proposal i have seen so far for resolving potential clashes >> with global labels is roberts draft: >> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-raszuk-mpls-domain-wide-labels-00 >> >> the draft proposes to use a context label for keying off in a separate >> 'domain-wide' label space - i.e. no clash with anybody in the networking >> doing local label allocation. > > Yes, there is no clash with existing transport or application labels which are locally significant. However, you still need some mechanism to ensure that a given domain-wide labels would not be assigned to different FECs (i.e., different node segments). yes and that mechanism is administrative policy. if you treat a MPLS label as global identifier you have to ensure that it does to get allocated twice. >> note that i am still not convinced that we need domain-wide labels >> (if we have SPT labels as per the latest SR protocol extensions). > > What does the SPT label mean? an SPT label is a label inside a label block. the actual label is determined by an index advertised by egress routers. the path to the egress router gets determined using an SPT calculation. see http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-previdi-isis-segment-routing-extensions-02 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-psenak-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-02 and http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gredler-isis-label-advertisement-03 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gredler-ospf-label-advertisement-03 for manifestations of this. >> On Jul 23, 2013, at 3:06 AM, Xuxiaohu wrote: >> >>> Peter, >>> >>>> -----邮件原件----- >>>> 发件人: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com] >>>> 发送时间: 2013年7月22日 19:07 >>>> 收件人: Xuxiaohu >>>> 抄送: status@ietf.org >>>> 主题: Re: [Status] fwd: New Version Notification for >>>> draft-xu-rtgwg-global-label-adv-00.txt >>>> >>>> Xiaohu, >>>> >>>> On 7/22/13 05:19 , Xuxiaohu wrote: >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> - nothing in existing SR drafts prevents you to advertise SIDs/labels >>>>>> from mapping server even for prefixes connected to SR capable routers. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, it doesn't prevent that case explicitly. However, I haven't seen any >>>> description of that case in the existing SR drafts. >>>> >>>> does not mean you can not do it. >>> >>> >>>>> >>>>> As you pointed out, the flooding scope of the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix >> Opaque >>>> DEPENDS on the content inside the LSA in the SR draft. However, In my >> draft, >>>> the flooding scope of the OSPFv2 Prefix Opaque LSA DOESN'T DEPEND on the >>>> content inside the LSA. >>>> >>>> given that OSPFv2 Extended Prefix Opaque LSA as defined in existing OSPF >>>> SR draft allows you to do what you need, there is no need to define a >>>> new LSA. >>> >>> The major difference lies in the TLVs and sub-TLVs contained in that prefix >> specific opaque LSA rather than the opaque LSA itself which only needs a >> Opaque type code to be assigned. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Xiaohu >>> >>>> regards, >>>> Peter >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> Xiaohu >>>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> status mailing list >>> status@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/status >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > status mailing list > status@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/status
- [Status] fwd: New Version Notification for draft-… Xuxiaohu
- Re: [Status] 答复: 答复: 答复: fwd: New Version Notific… Hannes Gredler
- Re: [Status] 答复: 答复: fwd: New Version Notificatio… Hannes Gredler
- Re: [Status] fwd: New Version Notification for dr… Hannes Gredler
- [Status] 答复: 答复: 答复: 答复: fwd: New Version Notific… Xuxiaohu
- Re: [Status] 答复: 答复: 答复: fwd: New Version Notific… Robert Raszuk
- [Status] 答复: 答复: 答复: fwd: New Version Notificatio… Xuxiaohu
- [Status] 答复: 答复: fwd: New Version Notification fo… Xuxiaohu
- Re: [Status] 答复: fwd: New Version Notification fo… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Status] 答复: fwd: New Version Notification fo… Hannes Gredler
- [Status] 答复: fwd: New Version Notification for dr… Xuxiaohu
- Re: [Status] fwd: New Version Notification for dr… Xuxiaohu
- [Status] 答复: 答复: fwd: New Version Notification fo… Xuxiaohu
- Re: [Status] 答复: fwd: New Version Notification fo… Peter Psenak
- [Status] 答复: fwd: New Version Notification for dr… Xuxiaohu
- Re: [Status] fwd: New Version Notification for dr… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Status] fwd: New Version Notification for dr… Xuxiaohu
- Re: [Status] fwd: New Version Notification for dr… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Status] fwd: New Version Notification for dr… Xuxiaohu
- Re: [Status] fwd: New Version Notification for dr… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Status] fwd: New Version Notification for dr… Saku Ytti