Subject: [mpls] draft-ietf-bess-nsh-bgp-control-plane

From: "Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2018 11:41:37 +0000

Adrian and all co-authors of draft-ietf-bess-nsh-bgp-control-plane, would you consider adding an MPLS label to the SFIR route in order to support https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-malis-mpls-sfc-encapsulation-01.

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2018 13:11:38 +0100

Wim asked...
> would you consider adding an MPLS label to the SFIR route in order to
> support https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-malis-mpls-sfc-encapsulation-01.

I think that the idea of making such an addition is fine, but (and no offence
meant to the authors of draft-malis-mpls-sfc-encapsulation) we might want to get
a little more stability and (of course) clarify the relationship with
draft-ietf-mpls-sfc.

It would also be worth checking whether the mechanisms included in sections
3.2.1.5 and 3.2.1.6 already do the job, whether 7.6 helps explain, and whether
the (already defined) Tunnel Encapsulation attribute can help.

Shall we spend some face time in Montreal clarifying what needs to be added?

Cheers,
Adrian

---

From: "Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2018 12:14:54 +0000

Adrian, yes lets discuss in Montreal to see how we can move fwd here.

On 01/07/2018, 14:11, "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]> wrote:

    Wim asked...

    
    
    Cheers,
    Adrian