IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Status] fwd: New Version Notification for draft-xu-rtgwg-global-label-adv-00.txt

Hannes Gredler <hannes@juniper.net> Thu, 25 July 2013 15:19 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 CDC2B21F85E8 for <status@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 08:19:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.819
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.819 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.421, BAYES_00=-2.599, DATE_IN_PAST_06_12=1.069, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 ve9Y6C4bp1hN for <status@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 08:19:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from co9outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (co9ehsobe003.messaging.microsoft.com [207.46.163.26]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E6EF21F84B1 for <status@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 08:19:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail3-co9-R.bigfish.com (10.236.132.233) by CO9EHSOBE013.bigfish.com (10.236.130.76) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.22; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 15:19:11 +0000
Received: from mail3-co9 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail3-co9-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74D3B400B7 for <status@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 15:19:11 +0000 (UTC)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:66.129.224.52; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:P-EMF01-SAC.jnpr.net; RD:none; EFVD:NLI
X-SpamScore: -25
X-BigFish: VPS-25(zf7Izbb2dI98dI9371Ic89bh1432Idb82hzz1f42h208ch1ee6h1de0h1fdah2073h1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ah1fc6hzz1de098h1033IL17326ah1de097h1de096h8275dhz2fh2a8h683h839h93fhd25he5bhf0ah1288h12a5h12a9h12bdh137ah139eh13b6h1441h1504h1537h162dh1631h1662h1758h1898h18e1h1946h19b5h19ceh1ad9h1b0ah1d0ch1d2eh1d3fh1dfeh1dffh1e23h1155h)
Received-SPF: pass (mail3-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-EMF01-SAC.jnpr.net ; SAC.jnpr.net ;
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report-Untrusted: CIP:132.245.1.149; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); (null); H:BLUPRD0512HT003.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; R:internal; EFV:INT
Received: from mail3-co9 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail3-co9 (MessageSwitch) id 137476554957455_27481; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 15:19:09 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from CO9EHSMHS026.bigfish.com (unknown [10.236.132.225]) by mail3-co9.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F423BC80047 for <status@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 15:19:08 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from P-EMF01-SAC.jnpr.net (66.129.224.52) by CO9EHSMHS026.bigfish.com (10.236.130.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.227.3; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 15:19:08 +0000
Received: from P-CLDFE01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.59) by P-EMF01-SAC.jnpr.net (172.24.192.17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.146.0; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 08:19:07 -0700
Received: from o365mail.juniper.net (207.17.137.224) by o365mail.juniper.net (172.24.192.59) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.146.0; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 08:19:07 -0700
Received: from va3outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (216.32.180.30) by o365mail.juniper.net (207.17.137.224) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.146.0; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 08:32:09 -0700
Received: from mail107-va3-R.bigfish.com (10.7.14.242) by VA3EHSOBE004.bigfish.com (10.7.40.24) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.22; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 15:19:06 +0000
Received: from mail107-va3 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail107-va3-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1569B16026F for <status@ietf.org.FOPE.CONNECTOR.OVERRIDE>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 15:19:06 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail107-va3 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail107-va3 (MessageSwitch) id 1374765509855137_11732; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 15:18:29 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from VA3EHSMHS046.bigfish.com (unknown [10.7.14.237]) by mail107-va3.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74232200EA; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 15:18:29 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from BLUPRD0512HT003.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (132.245.1.149) by VA3EHSMHS046.bigfish.com (10.7.99.56) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 15:18:24 +0000
Received: from [172.26.200.249] (193.110.54.36) by pod51010.outlook.com (10.255.215.164) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.329.3; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 15:18:24 +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: <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE081D80C8@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 09:39:59 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <48BE96C3-7665-4441-A6DE-FA139F78D0F7@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>
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%IETF.ORG$RO%2$TLS%5$FQDN%onpremiseedge-1018244.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%o365mail.juniper.net
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%HUAWEI.COM$RO%2$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$TlsDn%o365mail.juniper.net
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn%
Cc: status@ietf.org, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>, Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Status] 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 15:19:18 -0000

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.

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).

/hannes


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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email