Never mind .. I guess you made it up from "Target FEC Stack" :)
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 9:40 PM, Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net> wrote: > Hi Carlos, > > Sorry what is "TFS" ? > > RFC 7110 does not even use such abbreviation neither do > draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed :) Google also seems to be pretty clueless > about it. > > Just curious as you keep using this term in each email :) > > Thx, > R. > > On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 9:24 PM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) < > cpign...@cisco.com> wrote: > >> Greg, >> >> In the MPLS data plane, FECs are also instantiated through a label stack. >> But RFC 7110 does not use numeric label values, it uses TFSs. That does not >> create any additional state. E.g.,: https://www.ietf.org/ma >> il-archive/web/mpls/current/msg16091.html >> >> Thanks, >> >> — Carlos. >> >> >> >> On May 9, 2017, at 3:43 PM, Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi Carlos, >> I probably would characterize anything that starts with Why not as a >> technical comment but rather as a question. >> According to draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls, "In the MPLS >> dataplane,the SR header is instantiated through a label stack". >> At the same time, one of advantages of SR is that "per-flow state only >> [maintained] at the ingress node to the SR domain". >> Thus, for the case of monitoring unidirectional SR tunnels, I consider >> that there's no need to create any additional state on the egress node. >> Of course, if there were bidirectional SR tunnels, then control of the >> reverse direction of the BFD session would not require use of the Return >> Path sub-TLV. >> As for LSP-Ping, I just propose that the Segment Routing MPLS Tunnel >> sub-TLV MAY be used Reply Path TLV defined in RFC 7110. I viewed the >> proposal as invitation to technical discussion. >> >> Regards, >> Greg >> >> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 9:07 AM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) < >> cpign...@cisco.com> wrote: >> >>> Thank you Greg! >>> >>> Since https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mirsky-spring-bfd-00 seems >>> quite similar to the text removed at https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff >>> ?url2=draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed-05.txt, then the complete set of >>> outstanding technical comments that triggered the removal of that text from >>> draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed-05.txt might peek your interest :-) >>> >>> One that I recall is: why use label values when every other return-path >>> sub-TLV for BFD and for LSP-Ping, including draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed, >>> uses TFSs? >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> — Carlos. >>> >>> On May 9, 2017, at 12:00 PM, Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Dear Carlos, >>> I've decided to re-start the discussion and am interested to hear >>> technical comments to the proposed solution. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Greg >>> >>> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 8:51 AM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) < >>> cpign...@cisco.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Greg, >>>> >>>> Cursorily scanning through this, it seems that most concerns raised and >>>> comments made about the SR sections of draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed-0N >>>> (with N < 5) apply to your new draft. >>>> >>>> This is one of those: https://www.ietf.org/ma >>>> il-archive/web/mpls/current/msg15860.html — the list archive shows a >>>> few more. The copy/paste did not address the comments. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> — Carlos. >>>> >>>> On May 8, 2017, at 11:33 PM, Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear All, >>>> perhaps this new draft may is of interest to you. >>>> Your comments, suggestions are most welcome and greatly appreciated. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Greg >>>> >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>> From: <internet-dra...@ietf.org> >>>> Date: Mon, May 8, 2017 at 8:29 PM >>>> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-mirsky-spring-bfd-00.txt >>>> To: Gregory Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> A new version of I-D, draft-mirsky-spring-bfd-00.txt >>>> has been successfully submitted by Greg Mirsky and posted to the >>>> IETF repository. >>>> >>>> Name: draft-mirsky-spring-bfd >>>> Revision: 00 >>>> Title: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) in Segment >>>> Routing Networks Using MPLS Dataplane >>>> Document date: 2017-05-08 >>>> Group: Individual Submission >>>> Pages: 7 >>>> URL: https://www.ietf.org/internet- >>>> drafts/draft-mirsky-spring-bfd-00.txt >>>> Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ >>>> doc/draft-mirsky-spring-bfd/ >>>> Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mirsky-spring-bfd-00 >>>> Htmlized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ >>>> doc/html/draft-mirsky-spring-bfd-00 >>>> >>>> >>>> Abstract: >>>> Segment Routing architecture leverages the paradigm of source >>>> routing. It can be realized in the Multiprotocol Label Switching >>>> (MPLS) network without any change to the data plane. A segment is >>>> encoded as an MPLS label and an ordered list of segments is encoded >>>> as a stack of labels. Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) is >>>> expected to monitor any kind of paths between systems. This document >>>> defines how to use Label Switched Path Ping to bootstrap and control >>>> path in reverse direction of a BFD session on the Segment Routing >>>> network over MPLS dataplane. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of >>>> submission >>>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. >>>> >>>> The IETF Secretariat >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> mpls mailing list >>>> m...@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
