Re: [mpls] draft-dasmith-mpls-ip-options-01.txt as a WG doc?

[Renwei Li <renweili at huawei.com>]

Hi Dave,

I do see your point. But it is really a local implementation issue. With or
without it, LER would still work. It could at most serve as a CLI knob which
can be turned on or off according to whatever someone wants, but it doesn't
look like a requirement for LER. 

> If so, should we not promote a consistent implementation among vendor
> LERs via

It depends on what you mean by "consistent implementation"? If it has an
effect on inter-op for LERs from different vendors, no doubt we should
promote it and I will fully support it. But if it doesn't have anything to
do with inter-op, I am afraid we should not promote it. There are so many
different LERs that have different local implementations inside, but they
are just fine provided they inter-op.

Moreover, when an IP packet has an option, it usually has a reason for
having such an option, and thus expects to be processed along the forwarding
path in the network. In this case, an ingress LER is essentially just one
hop away from the exit LER. The processing of such options on LER should be
no different from on other routers. 

Regards,

Renwei


> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Smith (djsmith) [mailto:djsmith at cisco.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 7:17 AM
> To: renweili at huawei.com; Loa Andersson; mpls at ietf.org
> Cc: Ross Callon; David Ward
> Subject: RE: [mpls] draft-dasmith-mpls-ip-options-01.txt as a WG doc?
> 
> 
> Hi Renwei,
> 
> Yes, it's a local LER decision.....but the LER implementation has
> consequences on downstream LSRs.
> 
> Do you agree that failing to MPLS encapsulate a IPv4 packet simply
> because it has an IP option header may be a problem for the downstream
> network?
> 
> If so, should we not promote a consistent implementation among vendor
> LERs via an MPLS WG standard such that when an LER decides "whether to
> push an MPLS label stack onto an IP packet, the determination is made
> without considering any IP options that may be carried in the IP packet
> header"??
> 
> Regards,
> 
> /dave
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpls-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:mpls-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Renwei Li
> Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 1:38 AM
> To: 'Loa Andersson'; mpls at ietf.org
> Cc: 'Ross Callon'; 'David Ward'
> Subject: Re: [mpls] draft-dasmith-mpls-ip-options-01.txt as a WG doc?
> 
> Opposed.
> 
> This draft imposes a new requirement on LER. But the new requirement has
> nothing to do with inter-op. Moreover, the new requirement is really a
> matter of local implementation, and doesn't look really like a "MUST"
> requirement.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Renwei
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: mpls-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:mpls-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf
> > Of Loa Andersson
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 1:14 PM
> > To: mpls at ietf.org
> > Cc: Ross Callon; David Ward
> > Subject: [mpls] draft-dasmith-mpls-ip-options-01.txt as a WG doc?
> >
> > Working Group,
> >
> > we have been asked to adopt draft-dasmith-mpls-ip-options-01.txt
> > as a WG doc.
> >
> > This is to start a two week poll. Please send your comments on whether
> 
> > you think this is ready to become a wg document.
> >
> > George and Loa
> >
> > --
> > Loa Andersson
> >
> > Principal Networking Architect
> > Acreo AB                           phone:  +46 8 632 77 14
> > Isafjordsgatan 22                  mobile: +46 739 81 21 64
> > Kista, Sweden                      email:  loa.andersson at acreo.se
> >                                            loa at pi.nu
> > _______________________________________________
> > mpls mailing list
> > mpls at ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls


_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls