Subject: [Detnet-dp-dt] LFIB proposals

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 22:35:17 +0800

Folks,

I talked Yuanlong earlier today, and we agreed do work a bit on "each 
others slides and texts". Yuanlong agreed to do the label stacks for "my
slide 7" and I agreed convert "my slide 7" to an LFIB. That text is 
included. Given what I said earlier there needs to be some (a lot of)
proof reading done, b ut I think the idea is clear.

One odd thing is that I've been going towards that we don't need the
L-level labels, when doing the LFIB I'm less convinced that we can do
without them. It turns out that what Stewart Bryant has been talking
about over the last year "MPLS labels as instructions", L-labels are
(among other things) an instruction to do or not to do replication/
elimination.

Sorry I've not had time to look at multicast.

/Loa

-- 

Loa Andersson                        email: [email-masked]
Senior MPLS Expert                          [email-masked]
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64

---

From: Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2017 02:31:57 +0100

Thanks Loa, your conversion to LFIB is quite useful. I'm struggling a
bit to follow up and check all the entries (not sure if it is because
of potential typos or because I'm just tired), but I'll wait to see if
the next call helps me with that.

BTW, it would be good if we have the text and "your slide 7" in one
single doc, and that the slide shows all the nodes and labels
(including the stuff marked as "*" in your document), for completeness.

Thanks,

Carlos

On Tue, 2017-02-28 at 22:35 +0800, Loa Andersson wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Detnet-dp-dt mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt

---

From: Jiangyuanlong <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2017 03:50:13 +0000

Hi Loa and all,

I have added the label stack for MS-PW approach in slide 14 and an LFIB for MS-PW in slide 15.

Slide 3 to slide 11 discuss the policy of Replicate & Eliminate. 
In all scenarios, it seems "Replicate first and then Eliminate" have some advantages over "Eliminate first and then replicate".
Did I miss something in the analysis? We can have a discussion in our conf. call.

Thanks,
Yuanlong

-----Original Message-----
From: Detnet-dp-dt [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Loa Andersson
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 10:35 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Detnet-dp-dt] LFIB proposals

Folks,

I talked Yuanlong earlier today, and we agreed do work a bit on "each others slides and texts". Yuanlong agreed to do the label stacks for "my slide 7" and I agreed convert "my slide 7" to an LFIB. That text is included. Given what I said earlier there needs to be some (a lot of) proof reading done, b ut I think the idea is clear.

One odd thing is that I've been going towards that we don't need the L-level labels, when doing the LFIB I'm less convinced that we can do without them. It turns out that what Stewart Bryant has been talking about over the last year "MPLS labels as instructions", L-labels are (among other things) an instruction to do or not to do replication/ elimination.

/Loa

--