Re: [Detnet] PREOF signaling

["Yangfan(Fan,IP Standards)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi DetNet,


I agree two documents targets to different use cases and be useful in both scenarios. Even in IP(including IPv4, IPv6, SRv6,6lowpan…), more than one solutions/encapsulations are worth being specified if different network requires. Based on that, I suggest WG adopt two drafts together. To be clear to future readers, it is worth mentioning the background/use cases in each draft. I also suggest to change the title of “IPv6 Options for DetNet” to “Deterministic Networking (DetNet): DetNet PREOF via IPv6”.



Best,

Fan


From: detnet [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Janos Farkas
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 8:53 PM
To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert=[e-mail]>; Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran=[e-mail]>; Balázs Varga A <balazs.a.varga=[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Detnet] PREOF signaling

Hi,

I also agree that there is no XOR relation bw two such WG documents.
I guess it is worth highlighting again that the Intended status of https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-varga-detnet-ip-preof/ is Informational; and it just makes it clearer by explaining with different words what has been standardized by RFC 9025.

Best regards,
Janos

From: detnet <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Balázs Varga A
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 1:47 PM
To: Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran=[e-mail]<mailto:zhoutianran=[e-mail]>>; Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert=[e-mail]<mailto:pthubert=[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Detnet] PREOF signaling

Hi,

Thanks for the comments. I agree with Tianran there is no XOR relationship between
the UDP and the HbH solution. Usage may depend on the target scenario and use cases.

Cheers
Bala’zs

From: detnet <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Tianran Zhou
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 4:16 AM
To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert=[e-mail]<mailto:pthubert=[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Detnet] PREOF signaling

Hi Pascal,

I think the choice between the UDP and HbH depends on the target scenario and use case.
If only need tasks on the server to behave, I think UDP should be a good choice.
If the on path network devices need to behave, I think HbH option should be better.

So what’s the scenario?

Best,
Tianran

From: detnet [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2022 4:22 PM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: [Detnet] PREOF signaling

Dear WG

The HbH draft is soon to expire, and I do not see that we had a deep discussion and a consensus on which kind of signaling will work best for DetNet IPv6.

We have a proposal to encapsulate over UDP, which appears ready for adoption, and one to use IPv6 extension headers, which is ready to expire; arguments on the table include:

Size of the encapsulation
Complexity of silicon implementation
Reuse of MPLS design
IP version independence
DetNet and SRv6
Flow vs path (the pipe and the water)

I believe that each of those topics deserves a solid discussion before the group jumps on the UDP solution. The wrong decision now could mean a lot of wasted effort in the future.

Regards,

Pascal

Début du message transféré :
De: IETF Secretariat <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: 13 février 2022 à 09:04:11 UTC+1
À: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Objet: Expiration impending: <draft-pthubert-detnet-ipv6-hbh-06.txt>
The following draft will expire soon:

Name:     draft-pthubert-detnet-ipv6-hbh
Title:    IPv6 Options for DetNet
State:    I-D Exists
Expires:  2022-02-25 (in 1 week, 4 days)