idnits 2.17.1 draft-andersson-mpls-open-dt-questions-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack a Security Considerations section. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == The document doesn't use any RFC 2119 keywords, yet seems to have RFC 2119 boilerplate text. -- The document date (April 29, 2021) is 1085 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 MPLS Working Group L. Andersson 3 Internet-Draft Bronze Dragon Consulting 4 Intended status: Informational April 29, 2021 5 Expires: October 31, 2021 7 MPLS Open Design Team Questions 8 draft-andersson-mpls-open-dt-questions-00 10 Abstract 12 This document is a living document, meaning that during the life 13 timme of the MPLS Open Design Team we will put additonal questions/ 14 issues into the document. When we find an answer amd a way to 15 document the issu it will be removed from this document. 17 Ideally when the Design Team is closed this document will be empty, 18 or maybe we just add a pointer to where the answer to quesstion is 19 documented. Thus this document will never go on to become an RFCc. 21 Status of This Memo 23 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 24 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 26 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 27 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 28 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 29 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 31 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 32 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 33 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 34 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 36 This Internet-Draft will expire on October 31, 2021. 38 Copyright Notice 40 Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 41 document authors. All rights reserved. 43 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 44 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 45 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 46 publication of this document. Please review these documents 47 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 48 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 49 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 50 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 51 described in the Simplified BSD License. 53 Table of Contents 55 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 56 1.1. Requirement Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 57 2. Open DT Question List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 58 2.1. Below the BoS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 59 2.1.1. Limitations to the ability of LSR's to scan the Label 60 Stack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 61 2.1.2. Does flooding om maximum scanning depth of an LSR 62 scale? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 63 2.1.3. Does flooding om maximum scanning depth of an LSR 64 scale? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 65 2.1.4. First Nibble . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 66 2.1.5. More then on ACH after the bBoS . . . . . . . . . . . 4 67 2.1.6. More then one indicator? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 68 2.2. Above the BoS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 69 2.2.1. Resuse the ELI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 70 3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 71 4. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 72 5. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 73 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 75 1. Introduction 77 "Living Documents" are not commonly used in the IETF, but we have 78 considered it to be a good way of documenting the state of the issues 79 worked on by the design team. 81 1.1. Requirement Language 83 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 84 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 85 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 86 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 87 capitals, as shown here. 89 For a document that is not intended to become and RFC on the 90 Standards Track it might seem moot to have the requirement language 91 included, however it might be that a question or an answer to one of 92 the questions might use the BCP 14 language, so to avoid ambiguity we 93 left it in 95 2. Open DT Question List 97 2.1. Below the BoS 99 As we start working on this document we just add new questions as we 100 define them. It is possible that later we will try to find a 101 grouping af questions based more on technical commonalities. 103 2.1.1. Limitations to the ability of LSR's to scan the Label Stack 105 Several LSRs have limitations how deep it is possible to scan the 106 label stack looking for certain information. If the info that are 107 being looked for is below this depth, is it possible to use these 108 LSRs for manadatoy actions? 110 The inormation needed for the mandatory action will never be found. 112 2.1.2. Does flooding om maximum scanning depth of an LSR scale? 114 A remedy for the issues in Section 2.1.1 has been suggested, the 115 maaximum scanning depth for each LSR in the network should be flooded 116 to all othr LSRs and used as a constraint when setting up LSPs. 118 Would that scasle satisfactorily. 120 2.1.3. Does flooding om maximum scanning depth of an LSR scale? 122 A remedy for the issues in Section 2.1.1 has been suggested, the 123 maaximum scanning depth for each LSR in the network should be flooded 124 to all othr LSRs and used as a constraint when setting up LSPs. 126 Would that scale satisfactorily. 128 2.1.4. First Nibble 130 We have indications that when we started to snoop the first nibble 131 after the LSE that has the BoS set to find out if the packet carried 132 IP (v4 or v6), there was also an agreement that "we" would never put 133 anything but 0b0000 or 0b0001 in that first nibble. 135 It is off couurse intresting to try to understand the definition of 136 "we" but since the aggreement were between the Internet Area and the 137 PWE3 working group, it is likely that it will be considered binding 138 for the Routing Area. 140 Stewart: Can you try to find out more about this and where we stand 141 today. 143 2.1.5. More then on ACH after the bBoS 145 More than one ACH after the BoS. How are the ACH's separated and 146 related to the indicator in the label stack? 148 2.1.6. More then one indicator? 150 5. What happens when you find the first indicator? If an LSR is 151 scanning "the entire stack", what happens when the first indicator is 152 found? 154 2.2. Above the BoS 156 - 158 2.2.1. Resuse the ELI 160 - 162 3. IANA Considerations 164 This document does not make any allocations of code points from IANA 165 registries. 167 4. Acknowledgements 169 - 171 - 173 5. Normative References 175 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 176 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 177 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 178 . 180 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 181 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 182 May 2017, . 184 Author's Address 186 Loa Andersson 187 Bronze Dragon Consulting 189 Email: loa@pi.nu