Hi Robert, > -----邮件原件----- > 发件人: spring [mailto:[email protected]] 代表 Robert Raszuk > 发送时间: 2014年5月20日 23:27 > 收件人: Hannes Gredler > 抄送: Yakov Rekhter; [email protected]; John G. Scudder; Alvaro Retana (aretana) > 主题: Re: [spring] draft-gredler-spring-mpls-05.txt as SPRING WG document > > Hi Hannes & Yakov, > > Thank you for your opinion on this. > > My major concern is consistency among routers especially in large network.
Since there are just label distribution protocols which don't affect the route selection at all, why do you care about that consistency among routers? Best regards, Xiaohu > While indeed one may say that this is a local policy matter the question is > can we > do better then that especially where we are coming with new label distribution > protocols. > > Also implementations need to somehow define such policy and perhaps setting a > reference to a recommended order in RFC could be a good set of defaults ? > > Otherwise likely Murphy's law will apply :) > > Cheers, > R. > > > On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 5:18 PM, Hannes Gredler <[email protected]> > wrote: > > hi robert, > > > > On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 08:21:38PM +0200, Robert Raszuk wrote: > > | Hi, > > | > > | Two comments on this document. > > | > > | > > | Question: > > | > > | Assume there is label binding received for a given FEC from/by > > | multiple protocols. Which one should be chosen by the LSR to be used > > | in data plane? Choosing wrong one may jeoparadise the hope of > > | stitching. > > > > i'd assume that an implementation supporting multiple > > label-distribution protocols, has an internal tie-breaking scheme and > > install LSPs for a fiven FEC only from the highest ranking protocol. > > > > | Is consistent manual configuration across multiple LSRs an answer ? > > > > possibly; - see below; > > > > | If so document should mention that. Otherwise analogy of admin > > | distance for FECs should be proposed. > > > > explicitly mentioning that there is a plurality of label-binding > > protocols seems unecessary to me. you are right insofar as rfc3031 > > does *not* mention a tie-breaking amon protocols and yet there are > > implemntations who support more than one concurrent label-distribution > protocol. > > > > | Example: Is FEC distributed by OSPF more important then FEC > > | distributed by targetted LDP session in the same OSPF domain ? > > > > that is an implementation choice; hopefully the administrative > > preference is user configurable. > > > > | On the other hand if this case is considered an error a > > | corresponding error handling section may be required. > > | > > | > > | Recommendation: > > | > > | s/distirbution/distribution/ > > | > > | > > | Best regards, > > | R. > > | > > | > > | On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 7:37 PM, Yakov Rekhter <[email protected]> > wrote: > > | > Alvaro and John, > > | > > > | > The authors of draft-gredler-spring-mpls-05.txt would like to ask > > | > SPRING WG to accept this draft as SPRING WG document. > > | > > > | > Yakov. > > | > ------- Forwarded Message > > | > > > | > Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 10:33:51 -0700 > > | > From: <[email protected]> > > | > To: <[email protected]> > > | > Subject: I-D Action: draft-gredler-spring-mpls-05.txt > > | > > > | > > > | > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > > | > > > | > > > | > Title : Supporting Source/Explicitly Routed Tunnels > via Stack > > | > ed LSPs > > | > Authors : Hannes Gredler > > | > Yakov Rekhter > > | > Luay Jalil > > | > Sriganesh Kini > > | > Xiaohu Xu > > | > Filename : draft-gredler-spring-mpls-05.txt > > | > Pages : 17 > > | > Date : 2014-05-16 > > | > > > | > Abstract: > > | > This document describes how source/explicitly routed tunnels could be > > | > realized using stacked Label Switched Paths (LSPs). > > | > > > | > This document also describes how use of IS-IS/OSPF as a label > > | > distribution protocol fits into the MPLS architecture. > > | > > > | > > > | > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > > | > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gredler-spring-mpls/ > > | > > > | > There's also a htmlized version available at: > > | > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gredler-spring-mpls-05 > > | > > > | > A diff from the previous version is available at: > > | > http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-gredler-spring-mpls-05 > > | > > > | > > > | > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of > > | > submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at > > tools.ietf.org. > > | > > > | > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > > | > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > | > > > | > _______________________________________________ > > | > I-D-Announce mailing list > > | > [email protected] > > | > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce > > | > Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or > > | > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > > | > > > | > ------- End of Forwarded Message > > | > > > | > _______________________________________________ > > | > spring mailing list > > | > [email protected] > > | > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring > > | > > | _______________________________________________ > > | spring mailing list > > | [email protected] > > | https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring > > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring _______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
