IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [bmwg] Feedback on the IPv6 and MPLS SR drafts - to consolidate or not?

Boris Khasanov <bhassanov@yandex-team.ru> Tue, 08 August 2023 12:19 UTC

Return-Path: <bhassanov@yandex-team.ru>
X-Original-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5E5BC1516F2 for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Aug 2023 05:19:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.629
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.629 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_MIME_NO_HTML_TAG=0.377, MIME_HTML_ONLY=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yandex-team.ru
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xABCTUODmhvL for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Aug 2023 05:19:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from forwardcorp1c.mail.yandex.net (forwardcorp1c.mail.yandex.net [178.154.239.200]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 59809C1516EA for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Aug 2023 05:19:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-nwsmtp-mxback-corp-main-97.sas.yp-c.yandex.net (mail-nwsmtp-mxback-corp-main-97.sas.yp-c.yandex.net [IPv6:2a02:6b8:c08:1106:0:640:c3cf:0]) by forwardcorp1c.mail.yandex.net (Yandex) with ESMTP id 67DE05F968; Tue, 8 Aug 2023 15:19:24 +0300 (MSK)
Received: from mail.yandex-team.ru (2a02:6b8:c08:2f16:0:640:9395:0 [2a02:6b8:c08:2f16:0:640:9395:0]) by mail-nwsmtp-mxback-corp-main-97.sas.yp-c.yandex.net (mxbackcorp/Yandex) with HTTP id 4JXZ6203d4Y0-L36Lcq1p; Tue, 08 Aug 2023 15:19:24 +0300
X-Yandex-Fwd: 2
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yandex-team.ru; s=default; t=1691497164; bh=NeGl6XUp6s+Lp31iAR8465z0T6b/ChHvkM/jNqx38Wo=; h=References:Date:Message-Id:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From; b=LnTGRgyHZp2+pldlWeTAls6iFX+lQdkd//iAxafC9yMtKa+Uhg9780m1IGdK05HGv 2KmsccjeQFR3LJZPgqBdgkvDsj6B4mXJR4vI4yxnCwRG5Xxz/+JhgnCpKQvEo2RNJW AEbChlU1BOErk9d6D6bpKlEQnk5adcJfCNZsHEjc=
Authentication-Results: mail-nwsmtp-mxback-corp-main-97.sas.yp-c.yandex.net; dkim=pass header.i=@yandex-team.ru
Received: from mail-sendbernar-corp-main-90.vla.yp-c.yandex.net (mail-sendbernar-corp-main-90.vla.yp-c.yandex.net [2a02:6b8:c15:2e85:0:640:fe53:0]) by mail-nwsmtp-mxback-corp-main-10.vla.yp-c.yandex.net (mxbackcorp/Yandex) with HTTP id MIXAg20OuSw0-FyPTBZ0u for <bhassanov@yandex-team.ru>; Tue, 08 Aug 2023 15:19:13 +0300
Received: by mail-sendbernar-corp-main-90.vla.yp-c.yandex.net with HTTP; Tue, 08 Aug 2023 15:19:13 +0300
From: Boris Khasanov <bhassanov@yandex-team.ru>
To: "sbanks@encrypted.net" <sbanks@encrypted.net>, "bmwg@ietf.org" <bmwg@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <46FA6F0C-D40B-4867-8840-8C46461A7661@encrypted.net>
References: <e96d1651-f6e3-37de-bf1d-9232983dbb8e@hit.bme.hu> <46FA6F0C-D40B-4867-8840-8C46461A7661@encrypted.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Yamail [ http://yandex.ru ] 5.0
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2023 15:19:23 +0300
Message-Id: <52441691495650@mail.yandex-team.ru>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/sO9pLP88mdrOZOEOhmkxl1trKFM>
Subject: Re: [bmwg] Feedback on the IPv6 and MPLS SR drafts - to consolidate or not?
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Benchmarking Methodology Working Group <bmwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bmwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:bmwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2023 12:19:32 -0000

Hi Sarah and all,
Interesting discussion indeed.
Although there is a point that both SR-MPLS and SRv6 are finally SR (RFC 8402) I doubt that there is a need to consolidate both drafts into the common one.
I just want to repeat my arguments from the IETF-117 discussion.
The development and implementation phases for SRv6 and SR-MPLS are quite different as we know. SRv6 have things which are absent in SR-MPLS (i.e. SRH)  and which are also still under hot discussions (i.e. SRH compression) vs. more mature/stable SR-MPLS.
So progress/pace  of standardization and development for both of them is different too.
If we will consolidate both drafts we lose the flexibility for adding new testing items into SRv6 part (at least make it harder) and at the same time make SR-MPLS methodology dependable from SRv6 one.
 
From customer side, IMO, (I would like to pay your attention that SRv6 can be used  not only in carriers networks but in DC/DCI too f.e.) it is not a big difference to search and check just one Segment Routing benchmarking methodology RFC (draft) vs. two separate (SR-MPLS and SRv6)  ones depending on particular situation.  The latter looks even easier: those who need SR-MPLS will read SR-MPLS one without need to go through SRv6 part  inside or vice verse.
 
SY,
Boris
 
 

Good afternoon BMWG,
        At IETF 117 in San Francisco, we had a discussion around whether or not to consolidate the IPv6 and MPLS SR drafts - they’re currently separate. We, as a group, took an action to continue that conversation on the list, prior to calling for the adoption of either 1 (consolidated) or both drafts. To that end, I’d like to ask BMWG for their opinions here. Gabor has already weighed in (thank you Gabor!). What say the rest of us?

Thank you,

Sarah
BMWG Co-Chair
_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list
bmwg@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email