[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       mpls
Subject:    Re: [mpls] [Idr] draft-rosen-idr-rfc3107bis-00
From:       Loa Andersson <loa () pi ! nu>
Date:       2016-01-15 6:49:42
Message-ID: 56989686.2000100 () pi ! nu
[Download RAW message or body]

Eric,

In this particular case I think "cross-posting" is necessary.

One small reflection for what it is worth.

If there is no strong reason to put this in one working group or
another, there is probably no strong reason to change the home of a
draft either.

/Loa

On 2016-01-14 02:11, Eric C Rosen wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Pardon the cross-post, but I think this may be of interest to all three
> of the IDR, MPLS, and BESS WGs.
>
> I've posted draft-rosen-idr-rfc3107bis-00 ("Using BGP to Bind MPLS
> Labels to Address Prefixes"), which is intended of course to obsolete
> RFC 3107 ("Carrying Label Information in BGP").  (While I put "idr" in
> the name of the draft, it's not completely obvious which WG should own
> this draft (assuming it progresses)).
>
> The purpose of this draft is the following:
>
> - It fixes a number of errors in RFC3107.  It attempts to do so in a way
> that is compatible with existing implementations.
>
> - It removes the material about "Advertising Multiple Routes to a
> Destination".  This is a feature that was never implemented as
> specified, and the text about it just causes confusion.  The
> functionality that this feature was intended to provide can now be
> better provided by using add-paths; this is discussed in the draft.
>
> - It is explicit about its applicability to SAFI 128 as well as to SAFI 4.
>
> - It clarifies the procedures for withdrawing and replacing label bindings.
>
> - It discusses the relationship between SAFI-1 routes and SAFI-4 routes,
> which is very unclear in RFC3107.  Different implementations have
> treated the SAFI-1/SAFI-4 interactions differently, and the draft
> discusses these differences.  However, as the draft is not intended to
> favor any one implementation over another, it can't do much more than
> point out some of the differences among implementations.
>
> - RFC 3107 provides an encoding that allows BGP to assign multiple
> labels (i.e., a label stack) to a given prefix.  However, it provides no
> semantics for this, and this feature has been only rarely implemented.
> In fact, it is believed that some implementations will not parse the
> Updates correctly if they encode multiple labels in the NLRI.  Therefore
> the draft only allows a label stack to be assigned to a given prefix if
> a new Capability has been exchanged.  It also discusses the semantics of
> assigning a label stack, and gives some examples of how this might be used.
>
> I hope that those of you who are interested in this topic will provide
> your comments.  I've tried to make the draft compatible with existing
> implementations and deployments, so if anyone sees anything that
> negatively impacts an existing implementation, please comment on that.
>
> I also removed most of the text that explains why it is a good idea to
> use BGP to distribute label bindings.  That text was important in the
> '90s, but now seems rather out of date.  However, I would welcome
> comments on whether an updated "motivation/positioning" section should
> be added.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Eric
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]