Re: [Detnet] [mpls] Continuing with my comments on draft-decraene-mpls-slid-encoded-entropy-label-id

[[e-mail]]

Loa,

> From: Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2022 3:11 AM
> 
> Bruno, Greg, wg,
> 
> The Open DT are working on a method for Indicators and Ancillary data,
> based mostly on draft-kompella-mpls-mspl4fa and
> draft-bocci-mpls-miad-adi-requirements.

Are you saying that the solution (draft-kompella-mpls-mspl4fa) has been selected and all others disregarded?

 
> why is it obvious that the "SPRING version" should not be part of that
> solution?

What "SPRING version" are you referring to?


https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-decraene-mpls-slid-encoded-entropy-label-id
and 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-jags-mpls-ext-hdr-entropy-lbl

Are targeting the MPLS WG and are not specific to SPRING as far as I can remember.

--Bruno
 
> Kireeti,
> 
> BTW draft-kompella-mpls-mspl4fa has expired, plz revive.
> 
> 
> /Loa
> 
> On 23/01/2022 05:34, Greg Mirsky wrote:
> > Hi Bruno,
> > thank you for your detailed response to my notes. I am looking
> > forward to the new version of the draft and continued discussion.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Greg
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 9:57 AM <[e-mail]
> > <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> >
> >     Hi Greg,____
> >
> >     __ __
> >
> >     Thank you for the follow up. Please see inline [Bruno2]____
> >
> >     __ __
> >
> >     __ __
> >
> >     Orange Restricted____
> >
> >     *From:*Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]
> >     <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> >     *Sent:* Friday, January 21, 2022 2:09 AM
> >     *To:* DECRAENE Bruno INNOV/NET <[e-mail]
> >     <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> >     *Cc:* mpls <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]
> >     <mailto:[e-mail]>; DetNet WG <[e-mail]
> >     <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> >     *Subject:* Re: [mpls] Continuing with my comments on
> >     draft-decraene-mpls-slid-encoded-entropy-label-id____
> >
> >     __ __
> >
> >     Hi Bruno,____
> >
> >     thank you for your kind consideration of my comments. Please
> >     find follow-up notes in-line below under the GIM>> tag.____
> >
> >     __ __
> >
> >     Regards,____
> >
> >     Greg____
> >
> >     __ __
> >
> >     On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 8:24 AM <[e-mail]
> >     <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:____
> >
> >         Hi Greg, all____
> >
> >         ____
> >
> >         Greg, thanks for taking the time to read the draft and comment.____
> >
> >         ____
> >
> >         WG, for context, we are discussing a subset of the draft: the
> >         ability to advertise indicator as part of the existing Entropy
> >         Label TTL as described in section 2 of the draft (it’s 1 page):____
> >
> >         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-decraene-mpls-slid-encoded-
> entropy-label-id-02#section-2
> >         <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-decraene-mpls-slid-encoded-
> entropy-label-id-02#section-2>____
> >
> >         ____
> >
> >         Please see inline [Bruno]____
> >
> >         ____
> >
> >         ____
> >
> >         Orange Restricted____
> >
> >         *From:* mpls <[e-mail]
> >         <mailto:[e-mail]>> *On Behalf Of *Greg Mirsky
> >         *Sent:* Thursday, January 13, 2022 11:41 PM
> >         *To:* mpls <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]
> >         <mailto:[e-mail]>; DetNet WG <[e-mail]
> >         <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> >         *Subject:* [mpls] Continuing with my comments on
> >         draft-decraene-mpls-slid-encoded-entropy-label-id____
> >
> >         ____
> >
> >         Hi Bruno, et al.____
> >
> >         Thank you for presenting this work at the MPLS Open DT meeting
> >         today. Below please find the summary of my comments and
> >         questions with the additional thoughts that came after we've
> >         closed the call. I greatly appreciate the consideration and
> >         opinions of the authors and the group.____
> >
> >           * Compatibility with nodes that support only RFC 6790.____
> >
> >               o If the proposed indicators are used to signal the
> >                 presence of an ISD, that seems to create a problem for
> >                 an RFC6790-only node as it might not be able to process
> >                 the ISD.____
> >
> >         [Bruno]____
> >
> >         - Draft(*) extends the use of the Entropy Label TTL field which
> >         is essentially specified as a Reserved field in RFC 6790. Hence
> >         draft is backward compatible with RFC 6790.____
> >
> >     GIM>> I agree, that if the mechanism is limited to re-use of the TTL
> >     field of the label element that includes the entropy label, then
> >     there are no possible issues. But then, how useful is a mechanism
> >     that allows for only seven indicators of processing instructions? Of
> >     course, if the model does not support a combination of instructions,
> >     then the new field might be viewed not as a set of flags but as a
> >     scalar with each value defining a different processing type.____
> >
> >     [Bruno2] Thank you for acknowledging that it would work. In terms of
> >     possible usages, the draft lists 3 ones in sections 3, 4 and 5. ____
> >
> >     __ __
> >
> >         - Draft does not specify ISD so this is out of scope of this
> >         draft. That been said:____
> >
> >         -  You are right that before sending ISD in a new extension, the
> >         capability for the receiver/egress to support this ISD needs to
> >         be known by the sender. This is priori required by all ISD
> >         solution.____
> >
> >         - You seemed to assume that ISD are always necessary but IMHO
> >         indicators and ISD are two different extensions and Indicators
> >         may be used without ISD extensions .e.g., cf sections 4, 5, 3 of
> >         the draft____
> >
> >     GIM>> I agree, that in some scenarios the ability to signal
> >     processing in a label stack is sufficient and useful. Though, having
> >     a method of doing a subset of what can be done with Ancillary Data
> >     and Action indication seems like an unnecessary overlap.____
> >
> >     [Bruno2] Thank you for the agreement. If one/a use case wants to
> >     advertise more data, it’s possible to extend the proposal (actually
> >     one should be published shortly)____
> >
> >               o If one of the indicators is to be used to signal the
> >                 presence of the extension, that, similarly to the
> >                 scenario above, might not be correctly processed by an
> >                 RFC6790-only node.____
> >
> >         [Bruno] idem ____
> >
> >           * Scaling____
> >
> >               o If the proposed method to signal the ancillary data is
> >                 used in, for example, a strict explicit routing
> >                 environment, the Entropy Label is not needed. If that is
> >                 the case, using the indicators, as described in the
> >                 draft, seems to waste 20 bits in a label element
> >                 compared to the mechanism proposed in
> >                 draft-kompella-mpls-mspl4fa.____
> >
> >         [Bruno] And for all other cases, the scaling is very good as we
> >         carry indicators with zero extra label. So the net benefit is
> >         dependent of the relative usage of strict explicit routing
> >         traffic vs traffic which can be ECMP. In my environment, the
> >         latter is much more prevalent, hence the net benefit is
> >         positive.____
> >
> >     GIM>> I agree that there are cases and scenarios when seven
> >     indicators can solve the operator's immediate problems. Though I
> >     believe that a future-proof solution is preferable.____
> >
> >     [Bruno2] If needed, I believe that this proposal may be extended for
> >     the use cases that would require more. I see no reason for such
> >     extension to not be equally future-proof.____
> >
> >     __ __
> >
> >     Regards,____
> >
> >     --Bruno____
> >
> >         __ __
> >
> >         PS : by « draft » I mean section 2 of the draft as this is the
> >         scope of the discussion.____
> >
> >         Regards,____
> >
> >         -Bruno____
> >
> >         Regards,____
> >
> >         Greg____
> >
> >
> ______________________________________________________________________
> _______________________________________________________
> >
> >         __  __
> >
> >         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.____
> >
> >
> ______________________________________________________________________
> ___________________________________________________
> >
> >     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.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > detnet mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet
> 
> --
> Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
> Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]
> Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: [phone]

Orange Restricted

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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.