Re: [Detnet] WG adoption poll draft-geng-detnet-conf-yang

Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Thu, 20 September 2018 19:07 UTC

Return-Path: <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E16FF130E12; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 12:07:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w4FiTvw-HqEu; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 12:07:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22d.google.com (mail-lj1-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E4CB112785F; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 12:07:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22d.google.com with SMTP id p6-v6so9403956ljc.5; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 12:07:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=p9RWWWpsBZ+eyZC858soAlXj16OcH4YfIckAEcysSd8=; b=bqMPJYkpoJy2X9/ZqF5zQwJWH8qg6eQbDTVnNPSxVWvmw777bNJaF1i6dmg9zi1IWJ PhP4MTRSwQy2Nqrm39cofACjDvITOy3BhKzW6l9CA3vHLIeTjBRgz9xEox0GfgEszMEY 7Cjh98dToIHkaXN4/KpihHxnaoWKLzDQB4AEuX6NIWehymoSu2V1zqyZ2Zw3MYXqTVSw D1IsGJKqAVbfMyjjMnUra68KtEIlyCi92sjIKSS/lQmbcLVqFOxEoJv0NEOZBw3xvbSl Eds3efTuJoO8dqO8Pa8uhFEPnkwr9XlFp/Q2bkxBj3XPvfvMqiJtrA2GQ3Bb5HscGvOS LIoQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=p9RWWWpsBZ+eyZC858soAlXj16OcH4YfIckAEcysSd8=; b=P+qyFHvaI23X//UhbW5ELqLOQYfwi9e/m7/RPZK11amK/SSGRvGuyJ6u0pAzrYR6GH Gf2FA/Q9xDIB1oUMPSvoygD5q7JGNjRg41Lw4m5hQc2JoOBWbYsobXVL6NBFJFT6kZ7b sJaP5gmqnotwLMsLyQgjfYS/tmyoDBfxpoXeI96kewwk/Gc48PdPoaljU2+fXMiLmzMK G4Fq1MEt4Y9pi6pPhNfATcqElyXuxVWXl4qs1qD9y/Zz9Zcas3/c2ym2ND348N42oIIX 4bPb0iZGdt4GCxGDvfMFGI4ETYgkJ8iibsFffsPVMSkb1ykg046O6M3NbTLokI6mfmNA bb2Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: APzg51B/1LlI4snlJ/6oBobBhfRB12pgN2DnevNClEzVIf27onU10YhU 5YtJmvXbku+KiTDAvnid0RVmlNNgW9FqJOp+xRo=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV62PagoBnGlPSrui8MizZmy2Qs6atQ7ckH+44DmZFFZtukNLA+bmX8/bbOjGuyVFZCLRvR5glAf7mPmkpyYfFsM=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:534e:: with SMTP id t14-v6mr1084176ljd.26.1537470431862; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 12:07:11 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <HE1PR0701MB24577436ECDA028E9750C1CCF21D0@HE1PR0701MB2457.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CA+RyBmV_W56Djp3uxaPniOvooCYjNPbxKVfiY5+KAeM9ZOXhfw@mail.gmail.com> <CAA=duU2DQPNu9bJOSUfRH=Nj9StFaw2Sbpu8HT_P2a1r99Xspg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAA=duU2DQPNu9bJOSUfRH=Nj9StFaw2Sbpu8HT_P2a1r99Xspg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 12:06:59 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmVwRS3XPbKK1sYxcNRaorLJQQ6aOm62ffxk8O1RdRxqYA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com>
Cc: János Farkas <Janos.Farkas@ericsson.com>, DetNet WG <detnet@ietf.org>, detnet-chairs@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f1a40f0576523aa8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/HdIlmA1Nkiemc9fqa5f0KEYrVZc>
Subject: Re: [Detnet] WG adoption poll draft-geng-detnet-conf-yang
X-BeenThere: detnet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions on Deterministic Networking BoF and Proposed WG <detnet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/detnet>, <mailto:detnet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/detnet/>
List-Post: <mailto:detnet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:detnet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet>, <mailto:detnet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 19:07:17 -0000

Hi Andy,
thank you for your questions. Please find my answers, notes in-lined tagged
GIM>>.

Regards,
Greg

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 11:42 AM Andrew G. Malis <agmalis@gmail.com> wrote:

> Greg,
>
> I didn't get the point of section 4.3 in your draft. Are you proposing an
> alternative data plane encapsulation?
>
GIM>> Mach proposed to define d-ACH and we'll explore this path. Will have
update at IETF-103.

>
> Also, section 4.2 states that OAM replication is a bad thing.
>
GIM>> I'd differentiate between intended testing, monitoring of the
particular or all available paths and inherent multiplication of OAM
packets (it is one of undesirable scenarios considered in the draft). If we
agree on the requirement  "OAM packet MUST share the fate with a data
packet of the monitored flow", then the egress node would receive one and
only one copy of the OAM packet for each packet generated by the ingress
node. If that is not the case, then yes, it is a bad thing.

> However, if PR is being used, isn't OAM replication without EF a good
> thing? After all, you may get different answers on connected metadata in
> the OAM depending on which path was taken.
>
GIM>> It could be one of OAM functions, i.e. controlling PRs to explore
particular path.

>
> Cheers,
> Andy
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 3:16 PM, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Janos, et. al,
>> the mpls-detnet-header container is based on the solution described in
>> draft-ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls. Analysis of active SFC OAM in the
>> proposed MPLS data plane solution in draft-mirsky-detnet-oam points to
>> the potential problem as result the fact that OAM packet doesn't
>> include d-CW. I believe that this question should be discussed and, if
>> we agree on the problem statement, properly resolved. Until then, I do
>> not support the adoption of the model that may not be capable to
>> support active OAM.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Greg
>> On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 12:03 PM Janos Farkas <Janos.Farkas@ericsson.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Dear all,
>> >
>> > This is start of a two week poll on making
>> draft-geng-detnet-conf-yang-04
>> > a working group document. Please send email to the list indicating
>> > "yes/support" or "no/do not support".  If indicating no, please state
>> > your reservations with the document.  If yes, please also feel free to
>> > provide comments you'd like to see addressed once the document is a WG
>> > document.
>> >
>> > The poll ends Oct 3.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > János and Lou
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > detnet mailing list
>> > detnet@ietf.org
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> detnet mailing list
>> detnet@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet
>>
>
>