[bess] Re: FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis-09.txt

Hi Greg, In order to ensure that the text in draft-ietf-mpls-1stnibble is consistent with the text in rfc7432bis, I would suggest something along the lines of the following changes for your document: Cheers, Ali From: Greg Mirsky

[bess] Re: FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis-09.txt

Hello Greg, Yes, other equipment may be able to detect the presence of the entropy Label and base the load-balancing mechanism entirely on that label. If for whatever reason, the equipment is looking into the payload above the label stack then certainly, as you pointed out, the presence of the C

[bess] Re: FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis-09.txt

Hi Ali, thank you for your response. I have to admit that I still cannot find the relationship between the label distribution protocol and topology of an LSP, on the one hand, and the load-balancing mechanism of a P node in the MPLS data plane. To the best of my understanding, draft-ietf-mpls-1stni

[bess] Re: FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis-09.txt

Hi Menachem, Thank you for a great explanation of the risk of not using the Control Word to transport non-IP payloads over the MPLS network. Although very reasonable, the processing you described might be one possible implementation of selecting the load-balancing mechanism. But, if I understand it

[bess] Re: FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis-09.txt

Hi Greg, Section 18 of RFC7432bis has been carefully worded to ensure its accuracy specially wrt “SHOULD” and “MUST” keywords. We cannot blindly require the use of control word for all non-IP payloads (e.g., Ethernet payload) as it depends on a) type of tunnels used (TE vs. non-TE), b) unicast

[bess] Re: FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis-09.txt

Hello Greg, Ali, I know that there is existing equipment that perform deep packet inspection based on the content of the first nibble and not on whether there is an entropy label present in the MPLS stack. Without a control word, and when the payload is a non-IP packet, such equipment may misi

[bess] Re: FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis-09.txt

Hi Ali, thank you for the detailed response. Please find my follow up notes inlined below under the GIM>> tag. Regards, Greg On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 10:51 PM Ali Sajassi (sajassi) wrote: > Hi Greg, > > > > The questions that was asked initially are different that your questions. > But let me ans

[bess] Re: FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis-09.txt

Hi Greg, The questions that was asked initially are different that your questions. But let me answer them all here. The initial question was why not use the control word even when entropy label is used by all network nodes and my answer is that I don’t see a need for it and if you do, can you

[bess] Re: FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis-09.txt

Hi Ali, thank you for your question. Section 7.11, as I understand it, states: It is recommended that the control word be included in the absence of an entropy label [RFC6790]. If I understand correctly, the CW SHOULD be used, thus allowing for sendin

[bess] Re: FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis-09.txt

Hi Greg, Menachem: I believe during the Greg’s presentation at the BESS WG (which I was attending remotely), I voiced my concerns regarding mandating control word for all cases. So, let me repeat it in context of your comment: Why do we need to mandate control word when all nodes in a network u

[bess] Re: FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis-09.txt

Dear All, I share Menachem's concerns and welcome feedback from the authors. Regards, Greg On Sun, May 5, 2024 at 12:33 AM Menachem Dodge wrote: > Hello Authors, > > > > Just wondering why none of the discussion held at Brisbane meeting in > March and subsequently on the emailing list regarding