Hi Carlos, I’ll wait for the authors to respond on the precise definition for RLDC. Perhaps, my impression of https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label-04.txt being cooked is incorrect. Thanks, Acee
From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 10:20 AM To: Bruno Decraene <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: Acee Lindem <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, OSPF WG List <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [OSPF] WG Last Call for "Signalling ELC using OSPF" Jumping a bit mid-thread, but with somewhat similar or related comments. Summary: I am concerned with the lack of precision in the definitions and usage on these set of documents. Acee, if this document needs to depend on Section 4 of draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label-04.txt, then the issue is compounded. I believe draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label-04has its own set of problems (for example, placing EL/ELI independent of whether the underlying Label is for a Node SID or a Segment SID is not optimum). So the main question is: Is draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-03 to be treated independently form draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label-04? That is a fundamental question for advancing and reviewing this/these doc(s). We have the advertisement of a capability — what is it used for? Is it the right variable to advertise (based on the application using it)? Specifically, I think that RLDC is largely underspecified. The doc says: " it would be useful for ingress LSRs to know each LSR's capability of reading the maximum label stack deepth. This capability, referred to as Readable Label Deepth Capability (RLDC) “ That definition simple does not make sense. And it does not explain the applicability (A, b, c, d). Then the doc continues: “ Readable Label Deepth Capability (RLDC) can be used by ingress LSRs to determine whether it's necessary to insert an EL for a given LSP tunnel in the case where there has already been at least one EL in the label stack [I-D.ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label] . " So this only is useful when there’s an EL (I assume ELI/EL pair) already? And is “[I-D.ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label]” normative? Overall, I think a WGLC is premature, since some basics are not well covered. Is it RLD or RLDC? And what exactly is a “Readable Label Deepth Capability (RLDC)” The capability to do what? Is this a Capability or a scalar? Another point comment — although I think this needs a thorough review before WGLC. The doc says: Of course, even it has been determined that it's neccessary to insert an EL for a given LSP tunnel, if the egress LSR of that LSP tunnel has not yet indicated that it can process ELs for that tunnel, the ingress LSR MUST NOT include an entropy label for that tunnel as well. This is good and consistent with RFC 6790: c. X MUST NOT include an entropy label for a given tunnel unless the egress LSR Y has indicated that it can process entropy labels for that tunnel. So it’s better to point to it instead of re-MUST NOT independently. But, what is the egress of a tunnel in this context? Not the final egress, but the SID egress. ? Thanks, — Carlos Pignataro, [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> “Sometimes I use big words that I do not fully understand, to make myself sound more photosynthesis." On Nov 8, 2016, at 6:15 AM, [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> wrote: Hi Acee, Thanks for your reply. Please see inline [Bruno] From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2016 2:27 AM To: DECRAENE Bruno IMT/OLN; OSPF WG List Subject: Re: [OSPF] WG Last Call for "Signalling ELC using OSPF" Hi Bruno, From: Bruno Decraene <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Monday, November 7, 2016 at 6:43 AM To: Acee Lindem <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, OSPF WG List <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: RE: [OSPF] WG Last Call for "Signalling ELC using OSPF" Hi authors, all, Please find below some comments on the RLDC definition. 1) I’d like to see a more specific definition of RLDC. e.g. load-balancing hashing could be done based on (hashing): -a- a (stack of) N “regular” MPLS labels (i.e. there is no ELI in this stack) -b- the (IP) header below the stack of N labels -c- the EL label in the stack of N labels (i.e. there is one ELI in this stack) I’d like the specification to be clear on the applicability of the RLDC. Does it apply on these 3 cases, on only a subset? Personally, I’d like at least a and c be in scope of the RLDC definition, such that an ingress with limited push capability could have enough information to decide that it could avoid pushing an ELI,EL pair if the stack of MPLS labels that it pushes has enough entropy within the first RLDC labels. I think that the signaling document should reference section 4 of https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label-04.txt. However, I don’t think -b- is covered there. [Bruno] The above section 4 has indeed more details, but I’m not certain that the definition is clear enough for everyone to agree on which “a”, “b”, “c” cases are covered by the RLDC advertisement. My reading would be that “a” and “c” are covered, not “b”. Reading your email, I’d say that you have the same understanding. But it bothers me that one of the authors has a different understanding. Alsodraft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label-04.txt is an informational document, so I’m not sure how much it would qualify to be a normative definition of what draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc advertise. Thanks, Regards, -- Bruno 2) Current text seems to limit the use of the RLDC to the insertion of a _second_ EL. Why is the RLD not applicable to the first EL? §1. Introduction “This capability, referred to as Readable Label Deepth Capability (RLDC) can be used by ingress LSRs to determine whether it's necessary to insert an EL for a given LSP tunnel in the case where there has already been at least one EL in the label stack [I-D.ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-03#ref-I-D.ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label>]” §6 Usage and Applicability “The RLDC is used by ingress LSRs to determine whether it's necessary to insert an EL for a given LSP tunnel in the case where there has already been at least one EL in the label stack. » I think that this is an unnecessary restriction of the RLDC usage. Indeed, an ingress with a limited capability in term of label push, could be forced to push a single EL label. It should be able to use the RLDC info in order to choose the best location for the EL, even if it pushes a single one. But both sentences seems to restrict RLDC usage for the additional EL push, not the first one. I would tend to agree. Thanks, Acee Thanks, Regards, --Bruno From: OSPF [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee) Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2016 5:46 PM To: OSPF WG List Subject: [OSPF] WG Last Call for "Signalling ELC using OSPF" This begins the WG last call for "Signalling ELC using OSPF”, https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-03.txt. Please review the document and send comments to this list prior to Nov 27th, 2016. Due to the IETF week, the last call period is going to be 3 weeks rather than usual 2 weeks. Thanks, Acee _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
_______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
