Subject: [mpls] Draft submitted - MPLS Entropy Block

From: Jiang He <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2020 08:47:25 +0000

Hello All,
I just submitted a draft, https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jiang-mpls-entropy-block/ .  it describes an approach for MPLS load balance, by  allocating a specific MPLS label block for entropy usage.
The purpose is to mitigate the limitation of the number of labels can be pushed and the number of labels can be inspected when looking for entropy information.

Your comments are highly appreciated!

Regards,
Jiang

---

From: Jeff Tantsura <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2020 13:54:49 -0700

Hello co-authors,

The solution proposed ignores all the previous work done to address this particular issue. Without going into more details
Please read RFC8662 to better understand all the different pieces involved.
draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc/draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc specifically to understand control plane involved.

Cheers,
Jeff
On Jun 2, 2020, 1:47 AM -0700, Jiang He <jiang.he=[email-masked]>, wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2020 17:01:25 -0400

Jeff, you assertion that the authors are ignoring existing work seems to 
border on mind-reading.  Binding SIDs (ala 8662) are a way to reduce 
label stack depth.  It is a useful tool.  Being able to remove the 
Entropy Label Indicator would also be beneficial.

The proposal does recognize that one may well need more than one entropy 
label (and thus labels aimed at different targets) in the stack.  The 
initial portion of the document does focus on the single entropy label 
case to make the idea clear.  The authors (i am not one of them) are 
well aware of the work on advertising various attributes of label depeth 
for generation and processing.

Yours,
Joel

On 6/2/2020 4:54 PM, Jeff Tantsura wrote:
> Hello co-authors,
> 
> The solution proposed ignores all the previous work done to address this 
> particular issue. Without going into more details
> On Jun 2, 2020, 1:47 AM -0700, Jiang He 
> <jiang.he=[email-masked]>, wrote:
>>
>> Hello All,
>>
>> I just submitted a draft, 
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jiang-mpls-entropy-block/ .  it 
>> describes an approach for MPLS load balance, by  allocating a specific 
>> MPLS label block for entropy usage.
>>
>> The purpose is to mitigate the limitation of the number of labels can 
>> be pushed and the number of labels can be inspected when looking for 
>> entropy information.
>>

---

From: Jeff Tantsura <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2020 14:18:04 -0700

Joel,

My assertion is based on reading the draft, no magic involved. None of what you have mentioned below is discussed in the draft, hence ignored.
8662 goes in details as to why particular options have been chosen/rejected.

Cheers,
Jeff

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2020 18:16:38 -0400

RFC 8662 is readable piece of work.  And it explains well the choices 
and complications for where to place ELI / EL pairs.  it does not, in 
nay place I could see, discuss whether there are alternatives to using 
the pairs.  Which is reasonable.  using the pairs is the agreed current 
standard.

The draft be colleagues have written asks the question as to whether 
there are reasonable techniques that would allow us to leave out the ELI 
from those pairs.  It may be that we as a community prefer to keep the 
pairs.  But given that there are ways to reduce the stack, it seems 
worth asking.

Yours,
Joel

On 6/2/2020 5:18 PM, Jeff Tantsura wrote:
> Joel,
> 
> My assertion is based on reading the draft, no magic involved. None of 
> what you have mentioned below is discussed in the draft, hence ignored.