One grammar correction below. > On Nov 21, 2016, at 12:01 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Bruno, > > From: Bruno Decraene <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > Date: Monday, November 21, 2016 at 9:43 AM > To: Acee Lindem <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, Xiaohu Xu > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Cc: OSPF WG List <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, "Carlos > Pignataro (cpignata)" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Subject: RE: [OSPF] ??: WG Last Call for "Signalling ELC using OSPF" > > Hi Acee, > > From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>] > Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2016 12:33 AM > To: DECRAENE Bruno IMT/OLN; Xuxiaohu > Cc: OSPF WG List; [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>; Carlos Pignataro > (cpignata) > Subject: Re: [OSPF] ??: WG Last Call for "Signalling ELC using OSPF" > > Hi Bruno, > > From: OSPF <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf > of Bruno Decraene <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > Date: Friday, November 18, 2016 at 11:30 AM > To: Xiaohu Xu <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Cc: OSPF WG List <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, "Carlos > Pignataro (cpignata)" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Subject: Re: [OSPF] ??: WG Last Call for "Signalling ELC using OSPF" > > Hi Xiaohu, > > Please see inline [Bruno] > > From: Xuxiaohu [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>] > Sent: Monday, November 14, 2016 1:00 PM > To: DECRAENE Bruno IMT/OLN > Cc: OSPF WG List; Carlos Pignataro (cpignata); [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: ??: [OSPF] ??: WG Last Call for "Signalling ELC using OSPF" > > Hi Bruno, > > Could you please explain why the defination of the RLDC should be specific to > the LB behavior of the transit LSR? > [Bruno] The whole purpose of EL and ELC is to improve load balancing of MPLS > packets on transit LSR. > According to §6 of your draft, RLDC is also used to improve load-balancing : > “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. » > > What would be the point for the ingress to add an additional EL, within the > RLDC of LSR A, if LSR A do not use this EL to improve the load balancing? > cf my example below where a LSR can read 5 labels, yet do not use those 5 > labels for the load-balancing hence would not benefit from adding an EL > within those 5 labels. > BTW, it would be useful for the discussion if you could reply to the content > of my email sent: Monday, November 14, 2016 (also included below). As this > was already the second time I send this example on the OSPF mailing list. > > > > > If I understand correctly, it seems that the text proposed by you conflict > with Acee's take (see blow): > > " 1. The standards track IGP drafts should have a precise definition of RLD > and so not require a normative reference to the MPLS entropy draft (which is > informational). The IGP drafts need not precisely specify how the information > is used - this can be specified via a reference to the MPLS draft. > 2. The MPLS draft should precisely specify the initial use case of entropy > label insertion at the ingress of the LSP. It should not limit the > applicability of RLDC to this use case. " > > [Bruno] I’m not seeing any conflict. I agree with both points. In this > thread, I’m working on 1, i.e. having a clear definition of RLD. But I would > also like that this RLD advertisement be effective in improving the > load-balancing of MPLS packets. > > I think Readable Label Depth (RLD) should be independent of EL Capability > (ELC). It allows advertisement of the the maximum number of labels an OSPF > router will examine in a received MPLS encapsulated packet. > If an OSPF Router supports ELC, it would imply that it support the EL > Capability within RLD labels. > [Bruno] Would work for me, assuming that this is stated in the document, and > :s/support the EL Capability within RLD labels/for load-balancing purpose, > use the EL within RLD labels. > I would propose the following text: “RLDC is the maximum number of labels, > from the top of the stack, where the MPLS transit LSR searches for the ELI,EL > pair and load-balance based on the EL if present.” > > I would completely decouple the two capabilities. Here is the text I would > recommend. > > The Readable Label Depth (RLD) is the maximum number of labels, starting with > top or first label in the stack, that an LSR can examine in a received MPLS > packet. The supported RLD can be important when searching for an entropy > label for purpose of load-balancing as the <ELI, EL> pair must be included in > the first RLD labels in the stack.
The Readable Label Depth (RLD) is the maximum number of labels, starting with top or first label in the stack, that an LSR can examine in a received MPLS packet. The supported RLD is important when searching for an entropy label for the purposes of load-balancing as the <ELI, EL> pair must be included in the first RLD labels in the stack. Thanks, Acee > > > think ELC should be defined in RFC 6790 and the SPRING Entropy label draft as > opposed to the IGP advertisement drafts. > [Bruno] I tend to agree that the definition of RLD, or the load-balancing > behavior of a transit LSR supporting EL, would be better specified by the > MPLS WG. Then the value advertised by control plane protocols/signaling. > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7325#section-2.4.5 > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7325#section-2.4.5> talks about this, but the > document is informational, and the text is a bit too large/ open to have the > LSR behavior advertised in the IGP using a single integer. > But this option may delay a lot the IGP draft, unless it is splitted in 2 > parts (as ELC is ready). Alternatively, I’m ok with your above proposition. > > Why can’t we simply use the definition of entropy processing included in RFC > 6790 section 4? > > Thanks, > Acee > > _______________________________________________ > OSPF mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>
_______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
