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

bruno.decraene@orange.com Thu, 27 January 2022 10:03 UTC

Return-Path: <bruno.decraene@orange.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 DB5043A1C9D; Thu, 27 Jan 2022 02:03:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.097 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=orange.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 H4nyOGLVkhja; Thu, 27 Jan 2022 02:03:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relais-inet.orange.com (relais-inet.orange.com [80.12.66.40]) (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 D8F8D3A1C9C; Thu, 27 Jan 2022 02:03:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from opfedar00.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.11]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by opfedar21.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTPS id 4Jkx400bbsz7tjY; Thu, 27 Jan 2022 11:03:12 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=orange.com; s=ORANGE001; t=1643277792; bh=UfBwzr4ED3h5SCBo5vK1Pdpug1AwX4jkitrBEh8VwUM=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=qD/cPZ/ceerV0vxsCf3Zwq9cSN3EF0Kbx5ajmZxERRi2cGfs9kqBWujqPxPybUF4T EoplkgF229MIAR/XAFw+idAmwVxS5GFVw5N5xKD4G4/Y/TrvKIsKnl19ItkQdWUNgF ny4jhOowLq9JdcxQQDErvzlKmZYUnda/f3ZbcHC2sjnyuIs32xtV5TiWiNblcd9XEt Jepgd+0HFt+qMy1El5JxLwXUBe+x9DxkTjPWf8xF79+LktnMeT5z1O0C9oDNkbN1AG 46mUN/pdpyQvGEuUjJXOVxW0PsTP1v8XyLwhvXj4m1WZmxYoKsWlAQrttBT0OdIK58 KiWVgiRjGf9mg==
From: bruno.decraene@orange.com
To: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
CC: mpls <mpls@ietf.org>, "pals@ietf.org" <pals@ietf.org>, DetNet WG <detnet@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [mpls] Continuing with my comments on draft-decraene-mpls-slid-encoded-entropy-label-id
Thread-Index: AQHYD9fNvXaTx7DxH0SsAQ12A7ZUTax2qT1w
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2022 10:03:11 +0000
Message-ID: <18452_1643277791_61F26DDF_18452_180_1_7c771241ef0842148864a7af02deb0f4@orange.com>
References: <CA+RyBmXiJeH+n583QnKMmUpDkgdUAaEEDxNDAskXrw1vyp4X5g@mail.gmail.com> <11050_1642436674_61E59842_11050_100_1_0d0176823ddd4cb4ad825e3ee88445a3@orange.com> <CA+RyBmWUDHP-me+CTZw3QPNH8MJgKhFxYq1wkxNT3wwOq8xjyQ@mail.gmail.com> <6217_1642787863_61EAF417_6217_204_1_8dd254d74cdc46e58328d6889c6984a2@orange.com> <CA+RyBmXsF_qXP4UDSQW+xA9TsMzyGjwWEARD4MS-BkqXM7AzbA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+RyBmXsF_qXP4UDSQW+xA9TsMzyGjwWEARD4MS-BkqXM7AzbA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
msip_labels: MSIP_Label_f47c794b-e3ab-43f0-9e0f-29fc3e503192_Enabled=true; MSIP_Label_f47c794b-e3ab-43f0-9e0f-29fc3e503192_SetDate=2022-01-27T10:03:09Z; MSIP_Label_f47c794b-e3ab-43f0-9e0f-29fc3e503192_Method=Standard; MSIP_Label_f47c794b-e3ab-43f0-9e0f-29fc3e503192_Name=Orange_restricted_external.2; MSIP_Label_f47c794b-e3ab-43f0-9e0f-29fc3e503192_SiteId=90c7a20a-f34b-40bf-bc48-b9253b6f5d20; MSIP_Label_f47c794b-e3ab-43f0-9e0f-29fc3e503192_ContentBits=2
msip_label_f47c794b-e3ab-43f0-9e0f-29fc3e503192_enabled: true
msip_label_f47c794b-e3ab-43f0-9e0f-29fc3e503192_setdate: 2022-01-27T10:03:09Z
msip_label_f47c794b-e3ab-43f0-9e0f-29fc3e503192_method: Standard
msip_label_f47c794b-e3ab-43f0-9e0f-29fc3e503192_name: Orange_restricted_external.2
msip_label_f47c794b-e3ab-43f0-9e0f-29fc3e503192_siteid: 90c7a20a-f34b-40bf-bc48-b9253b6f5d20
msip_label_f47c794b-e3ab-43f0-9e0f-29fc3e503192_actionid: 1c8c0373-b4f0-4565-8040-38860a3865af
msip_label_f47c794b-e3ab-43f0-9e0f-29fc3e503192_contentbits: 0
x-originating-ip: [10.115.27.50]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7c771241ef0842148864a7af02deb0f4orangecom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/cL1doWqMaKdYeSalscfyc0slllw>
Subject: Re: [Detnet] [mpls] Continuing with my comments on draft-decraene-mpls-slid-encoded-entropy-label-id
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, 27 Jan 2022 10:03:19 -0000

Hi Greg,

Thank you for the useful discussion (at least to me) on indicators within the stack as proposed by section 2 of draft-decraene-mpls-slid-encoded-entropy-label-id
The extension that I've been referring to encode data has just been published: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-jags-mpls-ext-hdr-entropy-lbl

Review is equally welcomed.

Regards,
--Bruno



Orange Restricted
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2022 10:34 PM
To: DECRAENE Bruno INNOV/NET <bruno.decraene@orange.com>
Cc: mpls <mpls@ietf.org>; pals@ietf.org; DetNet WG <detnet@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Continuing with my comments on draft-decraene-mpls-slid-encoded-entropy-label-id

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 <bruno.decraene@orange.com<mailto:bruno.decraene@orange.com>> wrote:
Hi Greg,

Thank you for the follow up. Please see inline [Bruno2]



Orange Restricted
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com<mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 2:09 AM
To: DECRAENE Bruno INNOV/NET <bruno.decraene@orange.com<mailto:bruno.decraene@orange.com>>
Cc: mpls <mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org>>; pals@ietf.org<mailto:pals@ietf.org>; DetNet WG <detnet@ietf.org<mailto:detnet@ietf.org>>
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 <bruno.decraene@orange.com<mailto:bruno.decraene@orange.com>> 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

Please see inline [Bruno]



Orange Restricted
From: mpls <mpls-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Greg Mirsky
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2022 11:41 PM
To: mpls <mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org>>; pals@ietf.org<mailto:pals@ietf.org>; DetNet WG <detnet@ietf.org<mailto:detnet@ietf.org>>
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.

     *   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)

     *   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

     *   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.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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.