IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Teas] [mpls] Comments on draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-shared-labels

Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vishnupavan@gmail.com> Tue, 25 September 2018 03:04 UTC

Return-Path: <vishnupavan@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 360CC1311C8; Mon, 24 Sep 2018 20:04:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cBWIF1o37VBp; Mon, 24 Sep 2018 20:04:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x430.google.com (mail-pf1-x430.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::430]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 760411311D0; Mon, 24 Sep 2018 20:04:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x430.google.com with SMTP id l9-v6so10159922pff.9; Mon, 24 Sep 2018 20:04:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=zu0kKxreajYGSpDDpfmCWXKuWjrE2XCp+Msae0Wi/Do=; b=kFg9n2wIZvaoA9iki3Tq2MaU2johBWqFc6joOqbOSAxCSuZl6n/oFQQasp2dKX41f4 rsDeGsTp4SA/MFTSQ8rZcRAENBMTEcossaDtf1j37svXP56CiVBKfxn65aWDN+TTIea+ IoILUr6ZFcZAEDN+OySFEfvYaLmbW3rSkJoe2ERYYWZowN8p4tULBnCemxYb/aQdpiR9 RChD+5DA+HIyq9x6W560yXyYFNsrlIINafMWmYzYgXZeREedzkO3sgP0FMjjTLVSwNkC Aye/gLuiHhO3Zqz/nB8bJDygDTCSLfGsqJt+dQuX38XUgqshCBN/g2EQeBiW6qY8dJYh McGg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=zu0kKxreajYGSpDDpfmCWXKuWjrE2XCp+Msae0Wi/Do=; b=A0x/+EoKqr3bmShc320zUDGKdxRT4N/BHLl9ZyZ74/D+EO2xcUE3lYU0t6jqRVo//S V+qAHBAr5ehu09K7Js8qyorbBKeeRT4qtxegwvp+0/tsaB2j6M7cvXxDicQh6qUEcrE0 PZrEIseEFRR3N98U+bwqut48ZfUT8rMjBgXUNzvXu7YZzMD/GGAyITTHqSZ+VBWurr7n gFLBBblKgvMbeICr6MoOJsLVgWMnE1Aeg3VhBBMN+GsxDZJCizeZNpMACmyo0Fn5reif XKuOiKsHjcQaYpdUU4P7I9RUYUyXzCWlBUTEJ8ZmYk+5akEkHfWnpF10wRlJGdCcRzvt ykew==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABuFfog4wtZkEyfCtpCvKeraRtAe3faB13EuOFlLr1LQQjjJvXPXbGgN wOlDObiD79a89wuDEjbeNgodt6YE5LhJG1NhbHU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV63G44fqcF9zza6DR7xTfZxs+YtvdzFNwo6Fa8ZCr7IkP4NiWvZCiP1fIXjJ54NNMWu80xOGAB0DfPOaYM/YGgQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a63:a44:: with SMTP id z4-v6mr1296043pgk.209.1537844673869; Mon, 24 Sep 2018 20:04:33 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAKfnWBj5hWjGX0D5kuq6ya9p=0csB1C2h_-B6ZVhXpMm0=B6sw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+YzgTuESy7yaanHCfiDW74exHHVkpx8TY1t8m2ApggoEhUQgg@mail.gmail.com> <CAKfnWBgXfUaaY1QRRT1cuW=yx3LUeqaGThz9E76_tGVAnV1vug@mail.gmail.com> <CA+YzgTv8bVAMON442OqB5Rdi4B27cUvZZRfOeF9uLDV-oqHD=g@mail.gmail.com> <CAKfnWBh22BByZV-gzQ02T5=pFyQ1-ff1zAoiUbH-wWKJ1VFWEQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKfnWBh22BByZV-gzQ02T5=pFyQ1-ff1zAoiUbH-wWKJ1VFWEQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vishnupavan@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2018 23:04:21 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+YzgTstGuaNHXTPwKvyC5_NeDoMkq4z-VXZWMGBuJW-mWErqQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: mhartley.ietf@gmail.com
Cc: draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-shared-labels@ietf.org, IETF MPLS List <mpls@ietf.org>, TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000817d370576a95ded"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/NSKcHlKhGrQLpzsfwl8MnmbLXos>
Subject: Re: [Teas] [mpls] Comments on draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-shared-labels
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list <teas.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/teas/>
List-Post: <mailto:teas@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2018 03:04:36 -0000

Matt, Hi!

Great that we are in sync now. Please see inline for the response (prefixed
VPB) on the last open comment.

Regards,
-Pavan

On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 2:02 PM Matt Hartley <mhartley.ietf@gmail.com>
wrote:

Snipped..

>
> Can nodes other than the ingress introduce an ETLD into the Path message
>>> if the ingress node doesn't? In particular, can an explicitly-allocated
>>> delegation node do this?
>>>
>>
>> [Pavan] No and No. ETLD is used only for automatic delegation.
>>
>
> Do we need to say that explicitly? I don't think a transit node
> introducing an ETLD would do much harm, but if you don't want/expect it to
> happen then it might be worth putting that in just to close the loophole.
>
> [VPB] I don’t see the need for any additional text. We have explicit text
in Section 9.7 stating that ETLD is used only if Automatic Delegation is
requested in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES. LSP_ATTRIBUTES is included in the PATH
message at the ingress.


> Cheers
>
> Matt
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email