[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: mpls
Subject: Re: [mpls] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-egress-ptotection-framework-03
From: Yimin Shen <yshen () juniper ! net>
Date: 2018-11-29 14:53:45
Message-ID: CEFA3E06-DE34-4A08-88E0-9F4319E89053 () juniper ! net
[Download RAW message or body]
[Attachment #2 (text/plain)]
Hi Sasha,
Thanks again!
[[Sasha]] Would it not be simpler to say that, regardless of the way the primary \
egress PE allocates its VPN application labels, the Protector should always treat \
them as pointing to the relevant VRF and performing context IP forwarding? The logic \
that matches routes learned by the primary egress PE and by the Protector would be \
complicated and eventually could fall back to the same scheme – so what is the \
gain?
Good suggestion. We will say that, and point out the couple of possible optimizations \
(as described in my previous response) with risk of overhead and complexity.
Thanks,
-- Yimin
From: Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>
Date: Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 3:50 AM
To: Yimin Shen <yshen@juniper.net>
Cc: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, \
"draft-ietf-mpls-egress-protection-framework.all@ietf.org" \
<draft-ietf-mpls-egress-protection-framework.all@ietf.org>, "rtg-ads@ietf.org" \
<rtg-ads@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-egress-ptotection-framework-03
[[Sasha]] Would it not be simpler to say that, regardless of the way the primary \
egress PE allocates its VPN application labels, the Protector should always treat \
them as pointing to the relevant VRF and performing context IP forwarding? The logic \
that matches routes learned by the primary egress PE and by the Protector would be \
complicated and eventually could fall back to the same scheme – so what is the \
gain?
[Attachment #3 (text/html)]
<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" \
xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" \
xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" \
xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:DengXian;
panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@DengXian";
panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style>
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Sasha,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks again!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.5pt;color:#00B0F0">[[Sasha]] \
Would it not be simpler to say that, regardless of the way the primary egress PE \
allocates its VPN application labels, the Protector should always treat them as \
pointing to the relevant VRF and performing context IP forwarding? The logic that \
matches routes learned by the primary egress PE and by the Protector would be \
complicated and eventually could fall back to the same scheme – so what is the \
gain?</span></i></b><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Good suggestion. We will say that, and point out the couple of \
possible optimizations (as described in my previous response) with risk of overhead \
and complexity.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span \
style="font-size:10.5pt;color:black">Thanks,<o:p></o:p></span></p> </div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span \
style="font-size:10.5pt;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> </div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;color:black">-- \
Yimin<o:p></o:p></span></p> </div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">From: \
</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">Alexander Vainshtein \
<Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com><br> <b>Date: </b>Thursday, November 29, 2018 \
at 3:50 AM<br> <b>To: </b>Yimin Shen <yshen@juniper.net><br>
<b>Cc: </b>"rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, \
"mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, \
"draft-ietf-mpls-egress-protection-framework.all@ietf.org" \
<draft-ietf-mpls-egress-protection-framework.all@ietf.org>, \
"rtg-ads@ietf.org" <rtg-ads@ietf.org><br> <b>Subject: </b>RE: RtgDir \
review: draft-ietf-mpls-egress-ptotection-framework-03<o:p></o:p></span></p> </div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.5pt;color:#00B0F0">[[Sasha]] \
Would it not be simpler to say that, regardless of the way the primary egress PE \
allocates its VPN application labels, the Protector should always treat them as \
pointing to the relevant VRF and performing context IP forwarding? The logic that \
matches routes learned by the primary egress PE and by the Protector would be \
complicated and eventually could fall back to the same scheme – so what is the \
gain?</span></i></b><o:p></o:p></p> </div>
</body>
</html>
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
--===============0853400048799737092==--
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic