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

Hi Bruno,
thank you for pointing me to the text in Section 4.1. I agree that for the
case described in RFC 6790, i.e., a single ELI, EL in the stack, that text
sets clear requirements for disposing of ELI,EL. What I wanted to bring to
the discussion is how a transit node does that in the SR-MPLS scenario (RFC
8662 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8662>). I think that there's
no text in RFC 8662 that establishes equivalency between a transit node
disposing of ELI,EL if ELI is at the top of the stack and the LER per RFC
6790. That might cause different interpretations resulting in different
handling. How practically we can collect information about deployed
solutions?

Regards,
Greg

On Fri, Apr 1, 2022 at 9:06 AM <[email protected]> wrote:

> Greg,
>
>
>
> > *From:*  Greg Mirsky
>
> > I agree that the wording in RFC 6790 is open to interpretation. It is
> quite possible that a more pedantic developer would put a check for the
> zero value of the EL TTL field
>
>
>
> RFC 6790 says
>
> « 4.1 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6790#section-4.1>.  Egress LSR »
>
> […]
>
> “The EL's TTL MUST be ignored.”
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6790#section-4.1
>
>
>
>
>
> To me, that does not read like open to interpretation.
>
>
>
> > And I'm surprised that the authors of the draft claim precisely the
> opposite
>
>
>
> Are you now feeling better about the authors?
>
>
>
> --Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
> Orange Restricted
>
> *From:* mpls <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Greg Mirsky
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 31, 2022 6:00 PM
> *To:* Tony Li <[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)
>
>
>
> I agree that the wording in RFC 6790 is open to interpretation. It is
> quite possible that a more pedantic developer would put a check for the
> zero value of the EL TTL field "to ensure that it is not used inadvertently
> for forwarding". Is it possible to check all existing implementations that
> support ELI/EL? And I'm surprised that the authors of the draft claim
> precisely the opposite:
>
>    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.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 8:43 AM Tony Li <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> Gentlebeings,
>
>
>
> On Mar 31, 2022, at 8:29 AM, Greg Mirsky <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> my interpretation of bullet 4 in Section 4.2 RFC 6790 "The TTL for the EL
> MUST be zero to ensure that it is not used inadvertently for forwarding"
> leads me to believe that any other than zero value in the EL TTL field is
> invalid per RFC 6790. Consequently, that packet MUST be dropped. If that is
> not breaking the existing network, please help me understand what is it.
>
>
>
>
>
> Normally, we write clauses that describe such fields as “must be
> transmitted as zero and ignored upon receipt” just to avoid such ambiguity.
> It is unfortunate that RFC 6790 did not utilize this phrase. As it stands,
> it has certainly specified that the TTL field must be transmitted as zero.
> Yes, that implies that any other value is invalid. However, that does not
> guarantee that implementations will check.  In fact, the Law of Lethargy
> (people will do the least amount of work possible) suggests that most
> implementations will not check and will simply ignore the TTL field
> completely.
>
>
>
> However, this is not a guarantee. Any design that attempts to reuse this
> TTL field does run a non-zero risk of being impacted by designs that do
> check and reject such entries.
>
>
>
> IMHO, this by itself is not a serious risk, but risk evaluation is always
> subjective.
>
>
>
> Designs should always acknowledge and articulate the risks that they
> undertake. It is then up to the collective wisdom of the group to weigh and
> evaluate the risks, benefits, and tradeoffs when making a decision.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Tony
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> 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://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pals