Re: [Status] ??: Comments on draft-filsfils-rtgwg-segment-routing (Entropy labels for segment routing)

<Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de> Tue, 30 July 2013 11:42 UTC

Return-Path: <Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de>
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 C55F711E81E1 for <status@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 04:42:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.647
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.647 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.602, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45]
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 RJO9bvTQsosj for <status@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 04:42:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tcmail33.telekom.de (tcmail33.telekom.de [80.149.113.247]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E3FC11E81D2 for <status@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 04:42:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from he111631.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.134.93.23]) by tcmail31.telekom.de with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 30 Jul 2013 13:42:19 +0200
Received: from HE111643.EMEA1.CDS.T-INTERNAL.COM ([10.134.93.12]) by HE111631.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([::1]) with mapi; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 13:42:19 +0200
From: Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de
To: loa@pi.nu
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 13:42:18 +0200
Thread-Topic: [Status] ??: Comments on draft-filsfils-rtgwg-segment-routing (Entropy labels for segment routing)
Thread-Index: Ac6NBr67og7yFpExTjq6p/gIKrTYjgAEcirg
Message-ID: <CA7A7C64CC4ADB458B74477EA99DF6F501DF5F3DF1@HE111643.EMEA1.CDS.T-INTERNAL.COM>
References: <CAOndX-v25tjDwX1T3qpAvhGqpGyHHg4y=nkyK-d9j1yQv+BsGQ@mail.gmail.com> <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE081DA577@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com> <51F785F5.9080908@pi.nu>
In-Reply-To: <51F785F5.9080908@pi.nu>
Accept-Language: en-US, de-DE
Content-Language: de-DE
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US, de-DE
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: status@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Status] ??: Comments on draft-filsfils-rtgwg-segment-routing (Entropy labels for segment routing)
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: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 11:42:26 -0000

Loa,

I think it is too early for a statement as yours below. Just because one can execute source routing one doesn't have to. Source routes may be used, if they are desireable from a provider point of view. The name of the technology to me is Segment Routing, not source routing.

Regards,

Ruediger

-----Original Message-----
From: status-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:status-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Loa Andersson
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 11:23 AM
To: status@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Status] ??: Comments on draft-filsfils-rtgwg-segment-routing (Entropy labels for segment routing)

Xiaohu and Sri,

I'm struggling to understand why entropy labels would ever occur in
a source routed label stack, load sharing would be be done as part of
creating the source routed routes.

/Loa

On 2013-07-30 10:40, Xuxiaohu wrote:
> Totally  agree.  In addition, some extension to ISIS and OSPF may also
> be needed for advertising the ELC.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Xiaohu
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *发件人:* status-bounces@ietf.org [status-bounces@ietf.org] 代表
> Sriganesh Kini [sriganesh.kini@ericsson.com]
> *发送时间:* 2013年7月30日 16:12
> *到:* status@ietf.org
> *主题:* [Status] Comments on draft-filsfils-rtgwg-segment-routing
> (Entropy labels for segment routing)
>
> Hello Clarence and other authors,
>
> Current architecture does not address the issue of entropy labels. It
> should be listed as an open issue.
>
> At the mic yesterday, Kireeti and others brought up this issue and the
> related issue of label stack getting deeper. I think this is a valid
> concern.
>
> An EL for the entire stack is one approach. Another could be an EL per
> segment. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. This issue needs
> to be addressed.
>
> - Sri
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> status mailing list
> status@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/status
>

--


Loa Andersson                        email: loa@mail01.huawei.com
Senior MPLS Expert                          loa@pi.nu
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64
_______________________________________________
status mailing list
status@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/status