Re: [Detnet] [mpls] draft-decraene-mpls-slid-encoded-entropy-label-id (was RE: Please review the PALS/MPLS/DetNet Joint Session minutes)

Hi Bruno

Please provide clarification on how existing implementations using Entropy
Label ELI/EL RFC 6790 with your proposal to reuse the entropy label.

In section 2 you talk about the new entropy label control field in your
proposal to reuse the TTL field as the entropy label control field.

I have some questions related below that are concerning with your proposal.

RFC 6790 section 4 talks about the TTL processing below excerpt.

   If an ingress LSR X chooses to impose an EL, then Y will receive a
   tunnel termination packet with label stack <TL, ELI, EL> <remaining
   packet header>.  Y recognizes TL as the label it distributed to its
   upstreams for the tunnel and pops it.  (Note that TL may be the
   implicit null label, in which case it doesn't appear in the label
   stack.)  Y then recognizes the ELI and pops two labels: the ELI and
   the EL.  Y then processes the remaining packet header as normal; this
   may require further processing of tunnel termination, perhaps with
   further ELI+EL pairs.  When processing the final tunnel termination,
   Y MAY enqueue the packet based on that tunnel TL's or ELI's TC value
   and MAY use the tunnel TL's or ELI's TTL to compute the TTL of the
   remaining packet header.  The EL's TTL MUST be ignored.



So the TL or ELI is used to compute the TTL of the remaining packet
header.  States that EL’s TTL is ignored.

Section 4.2 mentions that the TTL for the EL MUST be set to 0 so it’s not
used for forwarding.  The issue here is related to implicit null PHP case
where the TL is popped and ELI,EL are exposed and to ensure that the EL is
not used for forwarding the EL MUST be set to 0.

   4.  If, for the chosen tunnel, Y has not indicated that it can
       process ELs, push <TL> onto the packet.  If Y has indicated that
       it can process ELs for the tunnel, push <TL, ELI, EL> onto the
       packet.  X SHOULD put the same TTL and TC fields for the ELI as
       it does for TL.  X MAY choose different values for the TTL and TC
       fields if it is known that the ELI will not be exposed as the top
       label at any point along the LSP (as may happen in cases where
       PHP is used and the ELI and EL are not stripped at the
       penultimate hop (see Section 4.4
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6790#section-4.4>).  The BoS
bit for the ELI MUST
       be zero (i.e., BoS is not set).  The TTL for the EL MUST be zero
       to ensure that it is not used inadvertently for forwarding.  The
       TC for the EL may be any value.  The BoS bit for the EL depends
       on whether or not there are more labels in the label stack.


The EL is not used for forwarding as long as the field is set to 0 which is
a MUST.  However if you reuse the TTL field as the entropy label control
field it will not be set to 0 and thus that could break implementations in
the PHP case where the ELI/EL are exposed.

Also the TTL being set to 0 is different then the field being actually a
Reserved or not applicable field.

I disagree with sentence below in section 2.

   Hence essentially the TTL field of the EL behaves as a reserved field
   which must be set to zero when sent and ignored when received.


The TTL field as I stated MUST be set to 0 so it’s not used for
forwarding.  So it’s not reserved and it’s read by the LSR looking for the
field to be set to 0 so it’s not used for forwarding.  I can’t see how that
won’t break existing implementations.

Kind Regards

Gyan

On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 12:30 AM Gyan Mishra <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> I like Bruno’s idea of reusing the entropy label as indicator of MEH in
> the label stack and is backwards compatibility for devices not supporting
> can continue to use for ECMP load balancing.
>
> I think this is a solid interim solution to get the ball rolling with
> minimal software updates and being able to support ancillary data in the
> label stack and as other solutions are progressed that may take longer or
> implement and deploy at least in the near term we have a quick solution
> that could be promising for operators.
>
> I think we do have to vett out the backwards compatibility and scenario I
> can think of is if you want to be able to use the entropy label for ECMP
> load balancing and simultaneously want to also use as ancillary data
> indicator I am guessing won’t work and that is something we would have to
> be cognizant of if deployed.
>
> Kind Regards
>
> Gyan
>
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 4:04 PM John E Drake <jdrake=
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Wim,
>>
>>
>>
>> I think I would term it a thought experiment.  An RFC 6790 compliant node
>> will take the value in the EL label field and use it to select an outgoing
>> interface.  If the value in the EL field is a slice ID, such an node will
>> select an outgoing interface which is not necessarily part of the slice in
>> question and that outgoing interface will be to a node which is not
>> necessarily part of the slice in question.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yours Irrespectively,
>>
>>
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Juniper Business Use Only
>>
>> *From:* Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) <[email protected]>
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 30, 2022 3:21 PM
>> *To:* John E Drake <[email protected]>; [email protected]
>> *Cc:* mpls <[email protected]>; detnet WG <[email protected]>; [email protected]
>> *Subject:* Re: [mpls] [Pals]
>> draft-decraene-mpls-slid-encoded-entropy-label-id (was RE: Please review
>> the PALS/MPLS/DetNet Joint Session minutes)
>>
>>
>>
>> *[External Email. Be cautious of content]*
>>
>>
>>
>> John, do you have evidence of this or is this a theoretical claim ?
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *mpls <[email protected]> on behalf of John E Drake <
>> [email protected]>
>> *Date: *Wednesday, 30 March 2022 at 19:13
>> *To: *[email protected] <[email protected]>
>> *Cc: *mpls <[email protected]>, detnet WG <[email protected]>, [email protected] <
>> [email protected]>
>> *Subject: *Re: [mpls] [Pals]
>> draft-decraene-mpls-slid-encoded-entropy-label-id (was RE: Please review
>> the PALS/MPLS/DetNet Joint Session minutes)
>>
>> Except that putting a slice ID in the Entropy Label field will break
>> existing  ELI/EL Implementations because their hashing of the slice ID
>> won’t necessarily place a packet on the correct outgoing I/F
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mar 30, 2022, at 1:00 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> 
>>
>> *[External Email. Be cautious of content]*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Tony Li <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Tony Li
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 30, 2022 4:08 PM
>>
>> > [Kireeti]: suggest attending talk by Tony on danger of reusing ELI
>> before making any decision.
>>
>> https://notes.ietf.org/notes-ietf-113-pals
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/notes.ietf.org/notes-ietf-113-pals__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Sw9ofU9AyD7Z-JKwyAqMlHk5xhNLxZNMSu31Yt6-K7yh-6JehvlSPLDcqrP3gOo$>
>>
>>
>>
>> Done. The talk raised no “danger of reusing ELI” for draft
>> draft-decraene-mpls-slid-encoded-entropy-label-id; quite the contrary.
>>
>> I quote: “claims of backward compatibility apply to
>> draft-decraene-mpls-slid-encoded-entropy-label-id-03”. With more details on
>> slide 18
>>
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/113/materials/slides-113-mpls-05-policy-on-mpls-special-purpose-labels-reuse-00
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/113/materials/slides-113-mpls-05-policy-on-mpls-special-purpose-labels-reuse-00__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Sw9ofU9AyD7Z-JKwyAqMlHk5xhNLxZNMSu31Yt6-K7yh-6JehvlSPLDcNEC7QKk$>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, the issue with this proposal is that it has no space for in-stack
>> data and not enough space for possible expansion of additional actions.
>>
>>
>>
>> [Bruno] There are two steps:
>>
>> - This proposal allows for carrying 8 Indicators and a slice ID while
>> been backward compatible with egress LER hance providing faster deployment
>> with incremental benefit.
>>
>> - If more in-stack data is required the proposal is extensible (e.g.
>> draft-jags-mpls-ext-hdr) but at the cost of losing the above benefits for
>> the ASes & uses-cases requiring more than 8 Indicators per AS or In-Stack
>> Data.
>>
>> So we can have both worlds: simple first step and extensibility for those
>> who need it.
>>
>>
>>
>> Independently, we also/already have the post stack data option to carry
>> ancillary data, which may limit the need for In-Stack data extension.
>>
>>
>>
>> --Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>> Tony
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Orange Restricted
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
>>
>> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
>>
>> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
>>
>> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>>
>>
>>
>> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
>>
>> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
>>
>> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
>>
>> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pals mailing list
>> [email protected]
>>
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pals__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Sw9ofU9AyD7Z-JKwyAqMlHk5xhNLxZNMSu31Yt6-K7yh-6JehvlSPLDcSqI60Zo$
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pals__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Sw9ofU9AyD7Z-JKwyAqMlHk5xhNLxZNMSu31Yt6-K7yh-6JehvlSPLDcSqI60Zo$>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> detnet mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet
>>
> --
>
> <http://www.verizon.com/>
>
> *Gyan Mishra*
>
> *Network Solutions A**rchitect *
>
> *Email [email protected] <[email protected]>*
>
>
>
> *M 301 502-1347*
>
> --

<http://www.verizon.com/>

*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *

*Email [email protected] <[email protected]>*



*M 301 502-1347*

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