Hi Peter Alvaro, 

On 3/20/20, 8:58 AM, "Peter Psenak" <[email protected]> wrote:

    On 20/03/2020 11:59, Alvaro Retana wrote:
    > On March 20, 2020 at 6:22:38 AM, Peter Psenak wrote:
    > 
    > 
    > ...
    >>> Besides the in-line comments, I want to point out here that this
    >>> specification is incomplete. It needs to have (1) a formal description 
of
    >>> the new MSD-Type (similar to §5/rfc8491), and (2) a discussion of the
    >>> interaction with the BMI-MSD.
    >>
    >> sorry, I missed it.
    >>
    >> Entropy Readable Label Depth is defined in rfc8662.
    >>
    >> I have modified the text as foolows:
    >>
    >> "A new MSD-type [RFC8491], called ERLD-MSD is defined to
    >> advertise the ERLD [RFC8662] of a given router. A MSD-Type code 2
    >> has been assigned by IANA for EARLD-MSD."
    >>
    >> Would that be good enough?
    > 
    > Not quite.  According to rfc8662, when a new MSD is defined, the
    > document MUST indicate the meaning of the absence of the MSD
    > advertisement.  For example, it says this about the BMI-MSD: "The
    > absence of BMI-MSD advertisements indicates only that the advertising
    > node does not support advertisement of this capability."
    
    ok, I  will add that.
    
    > 
    > 
    > Also, I need you to talk about the interaction between ERLD-MSD and
    > BMI-MSD.  If both are present, what should happen?  Should one take
    > precedence, should both be ignored, can they coexist without issues???
    
    how are BMI-MSD and EARLD-MSD related?
    
    BMI-MSD signals the total number of MPLS labels that can be imposed.
    
    EARLD-MSD - is defined as the number of labels a router can both:
    
        a.  Read in an MPLS packet received on its incoming interface(s)
            (starting from the top of the stack).
    
        b.  Use in its load-balancing function.
    
    I don't really see why one would affect the other.

I agree. BMI-MSD is an egress capability and ERLD-MSD is an ingress capability. 
While they may be related in the internal ASIC implementation, they are 
independent from a capability perspective. 

Thanks,
Acee

    
    thanks,
    Peter
    
    > 
    > 
    > Thanks!
    > 
    > Alvaro.
    > 
    > 
    
    

_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Reply via email to