Hi Jeff,
actually the paragraph just before "Otherwise, drop the packet" reads:
* Else, if there are other usable next hops, use them to forward the
incoming packet. The method by which the router "R0" decides on the
possibility of using other next hops is beyond the scope of this
docu
Jeff
I am in agreement that drop should be the default behavior in this case
where ldp is broken and unable to forward due to unlabeled fec.
As of the last many years most vendors and best practice of any MPLS
implementations is to have knobs to change the default behavior. That
being said you w
I’m with Bruno here, and the spec is quite clear on the behavior expected
(implementors, please speak up).
Given variability and interdependencies in use cases, I’d say, drop should be
(and de-jure it is) the default behavior, and if someone wants their vendor of
choice to implement a knob to ch
Hi Martin
Yes MPLS has definitely been a learning curve for operators as especially
with LDP-IGP sync, session protection and RLFA LDP tunnel in failure
scenarios.
In that context of the dropped question with LDP-IGP sync on unlabeled FEC
the packets would not get dropped and would take a differe
Hi Martin,
> From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Martin
> Horneffer
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> may I come back the the question below? Or rather let me update it a little:
>
> In case an SR-MPLS path is broken, should a node rather drop the packet,
> or forward it?
>
> This
rd packets without a labelled route, you need to make sure that
this protection remains.
Regards,
Jakob.
-Original Message-
From: spring On Behalf Of Martin Horneffer
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2020 3:35 AM
To: spring@ietf.org
Subject: [spring] to drop or to forward unlabelled (Re: Q
Hi Gyan,
we had this kind of issue since the rise of LDP and the invention of the
BGP free core. In a larger network, every now and then.
Some years later the notions of setting up targeted LDP sessions solved
some part of the issue.
Some more years later, IGP-LDP synchronization indeed solve
Hi Tarek,
1) it's a good question what to do label stack has more than one label
left, e.g. more SR-MPLS segments. Or a service label. Or both...
So far I was considering two possibilities:
a) Only one label is dumped. In case of SR-MPLS this means that one
sgement can be skipped. In case of a
Hi Martin
That is a very common scenario that occurs where one path where LDP
neighbor has lost its label binding for FEC destinations.
Most providers don’t label all prefixes and only label interesting traffic
meaning FEC destination which is the egress endpoint loopback iBGP peers
for an LSP.
Hi Martin,
See inline for some comments.
On 8/27/20, 6:35 AM, "spring on behalf of Martin Horneffer"
wrote:
Hello everyone,
may I come back the the question below? Or rather let me update it a little:
In case an SR-MPLS path is broken, should a node rather drop the packet,
to
forward packets without a labelled route, you need to make sure that
this protection remains.
Regards,
Jakob.
-Original Message-
From: spring On Behalf Of Martin Horneffer
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2020 3:35 AM
To: spring@ietf.org
Subject: [spring] to drop or to forward unlabelled (Re: Q
SF
原始邮件
*发件人：*MartinHorneffer
*收件人：*spring@ietf.org ;
*日 期 ：*2020年08月27日 18:35
*主 题 ：**[spring] to drop or to forward unlabelled (Re: Question on
RFC8660)*
Hello everyone,
may I come back the the question below? Or rather let me update it a little:
In case an SR-MPLS path is broken, should a n
Hi Robert,
the setup I sketched does not cover double failures nor 100 % of all
topological cases for forwarding.
And in fact, forwarding the traffic is not the main purpose. The main
purpose it to DETECT the failure in a useful way.
For the same reason we would sure not want to add yet anoth
原始邮件
发件人：MartinHorneffer
收件人：spring@ietf.org ;
日 期 ：2020年08月27日 18:35
主 题 ：[spring] to drop or to forward unlabelled (Re: Question on RFC8660)
Hello everyone,
may I come back the the question below? Or rather let me update it a little:
In case an SR-MPLS path is broken, should
Martin,
> it follows an IGP default route to a central device,
So putting aside that such default must point domian wide to the same
address (could be anycast if you are careful) once this "central device"
receives a packet and does a BGP full table lookup it will again try to
encapsulate it in M
Hi Martin,
I share your position.
Thanks,
Ketan
-Original Message-
From: spring On Behalf Of Martin Horneffer
Sent: 27 August 2020 16:05
To: spring@ietf.org
Subject: [spring] to drop or to forward unlabelled (Re: Question on RFC8660)
Hello everyone,
may I come back the the question
Hello everyone,
may I come back the the question below? Or rather let me update it a little:
In case an SR-MPLS path is broken, should a node rather drop the packet,
or forward it?
This can happen whenever the IGP points to a certain next hop, but that
neither supplies a valid SID, nor allows
17 matches
Mail list logo
