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

Hannes Gredler <hannes@juniper.net> Thu, 25 July 2013 15:40 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 2143E21F9AA7 for <status@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 08:40:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.694
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.694 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.279, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_33=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, 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 AbKN9BdP1faq for <status@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 08:40:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from co1outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (co1ehsobe005.messaging.microsoft.com [216.32.180.188]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4810721F9A5F for <status@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 08:40:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail186-co1-R.bigfish.com (10.243.78.253) by CO1EHSOBE022.bigfish.com (10.243.66.85) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.22; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 15:40:44 +0000
Received: from mail186-co1 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail186-co1-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A599D8401C4 for <status@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 15:40:44 +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: -3
X-BigFish: VPS-3(z3e12hz98dI9371I1432Izz1f42h208ch1ee6h1de0h1fdah2073h1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ah1fc6hzzz2fh2a8h683h839h946hd25he5bhf0ah1288h12a5h12a9h12bdh137ah139eh13b6h1441h1504h1537h162dh1631h1662h1758h1898h18e1h1946h19b5h19ceh1ad9h1b0ah1d0ch1d2eh1d3fh1dfeh1dffh1e23h1155h)
Received-SPF: pass (mail186-co1: 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:132.245.2.21; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); (null); H:BN1PRD0512HT001.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; R:internal; EFV:INT
Received: from mail186-co1 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail186-co1 (MessageSwitch) id 1374766842274669_31545; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 15:40:42 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from CO1EHSMHS003.bigfish.com (unknown [10.243.78.240]) by mail186-co1.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CC4A72004C for <status@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 15:40:42 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from P-EMF03-SAC.jnpr.net (66.129.224.52) by CO1EHSMHS003.bigfish.com (10.243.66.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.227.3; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 15:40:41 +0000
Received: from P-CLDFE02-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.60) by P-EMF03-SAC.jnpr.net (172.24.192.19) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.146.0; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 08:40:41 -0700
Received: from o365mail.juniper.net (207.17.137.149) by o365mail.juniper.net (172.24.192.60) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.146.0; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 08:40:41 -0700
Received: from ch1outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (216.32.181.185) by o365mail.juniper.net (207.17.137.149) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.146.0; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 08:45:00 -0700
Received: from mail97-ch1-R.bigfish.com (10.43.68.246) by CH1EHSOBE018.bigfish.com (10.43.70.68) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.22; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 15:40:39 +0000
Received: from mail97-ch1 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail97-ch1-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A76A2160261 for <status@ietf.org.FOPE.CONNECTOR.OVERRIDE>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 15:40:39 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail97-ch1 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail97-ch1 (MessageSwitch) id 1374766838178252_21018; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 15:40:38 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from CH1EHSMHS036.bigfish.com (snatpool1.int.messaging.microsoft.com [10.43.68.244]) by mail97-ch1.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D13120004A; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 15:40:38 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from BN1PRD0512HT001.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (132.245.2.21) by CH1EHSMHS036.bigfish.com (10.43.69.245) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.227.3; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 15:40:36 +0000
Received: from [172.26.200.249] (193.110.54.36) by pod51010.outlook.com (10.255.193.34) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.329.3; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 15:40:35 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
From: Hannes Gredler <hannes@juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE081D8C9C@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 17:40:27 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <D57F008B-701A-4613-B398-EED900DEBA8A@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> <5AF8B30E-E460-480B-83AF-0FBA4A367409@juniper.net> <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE081D8C82@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com> <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE081D8C9C@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: 答复: 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 15:40:52 -0000

On Jul 25, 2013, at 11:15 AM, Xuxiaohu wrote:

[ … ]

>>>> 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.
>> 
>> It uses the trick which has been used by BGP-based VPLS solution. Interesting.
> 
> In this way, the labels would be locally significant. Then how to achieve source routing by using stacked MPLS tunnels ?

SPT labels are used complimentary to 1-hop strict labels
(which are used for explicit routing)

in fact SPT labels can be seen as a way of compressing the
label-stack. lets say you have a given path with <N> segments
to a destination. what you can then do is to replace some of the <N>
segments with corresponding SPT labels.

furthermore the draft allows to have <M> algos infrastructure labels.
i.e. SPT(IGP metric), SPT(latency), SPT(TE-metric), MRT(red), MRT(blue) etc.
that way you increase the likelihood of finding a corresponding shared
path segment to replace an explicit segment.

the idea for multiple algos is that there aren't many dimensions to
optimize a network for (latency, utilization, bandwidth).

pre-computing all those topologies will give you
an "instruction set" for guiding your traffic with the most
minimal instructions possible.

/hannes