Re: [Detnet] [mpls] [Pals] draft-decraene-mpls-slid-encoded-entropy-label-id (was RE: Please review the PALS/MPLS/DetNet Joint Session minutes)

Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li> Thu, 31 March 2022 20:41 UTC

Return-Path: <tony1athome@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 49D063A10B2; Thu, 31 Mar 2022 13:41:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.512
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.512 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.248, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.248, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] 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 UmH0_wb3KC8N; Thu, 31 Mar 2022 13:40:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x434.google.com (mail-pf1-x434.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::434]) (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 D096E3A1126; Thu, 31 Mar 2022 13:40:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x434.google.com with SMTP id p8so669981pfh.8; Thu, 31 Mar 2022 13:40:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=sender:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=b3iSYTumYTg/zVUk9Tu6OjyCTX8nCFNCPgCB/Q/tJbw=; b=Mpb14y51NUe/aYSvJTw9UrwgHpGmnNu27JJjRRYNdhDlBCY3VaKTtJlU84vDMOz0Iv rSJtXYCqu7d9WXYNfCBQyxieJLAYL5vxwAfoGtTfklJevItJlIsfJYMx8wEuqfvHpDTH OJdYJbFHv80xQeasKXtIz6U06WZ3wt0iedLQrh2YxjGSJRydu5/RWcn7lNc6XafFQ2+a 4HFF1qlbNEvmcaNYqk4uknOnLdZmO+5WNsrK7p8nisDoy5y2zo5ZxuQSFtbj95m7bE9M GyS5FyjoC791LmQFrl712x/uP/TiLhguSE7SDeS2dCJWCrrm5mMiZbuR+/stCzcaPrHS cFug==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=b3iSYTumYTg/zVUk9Tu6OjyCTX8nCFNCPgCB/Q/tJbw=; b=SK06tOT/RC1pehd5SHDv0U2TBNr7O8eaMrFUorp7bqhsK79y09hqPS5S3z7oiMJuke Ai7WBx6I3id+U5YABpUoqfPGnoKtAWzVKuUudohTv0IpXvb+eW77Nrc8Ca281huO4H8u ejjDN68i+e23PYGZb4nHvjXWaVQdT7lx+Ax829Ofi8Fob/F0P8DtFvVIneZA9JdiWg2G 8OCZ9dbIr/KeUqyPGkhrqiCIZGVB5R+daOXifvcFfyHzyznkxa29MsugfAoGCE1ouvyg kQ+/1rZjLiqUlYnnO2lpvF4pQa7o3nchArNz4V199P/+w+pN4RqcdRYsSNpkWAmm8fJL tWCw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533DYjVyWU5pbG2hEB2gXQwSs9oAWaxa7Fj8G/5KvQoZRj4NqjrO PJYHOUJYM6fxPE7iYAIWaMg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxL35ftouinSFm8GoFupyfdndxS7ud4HrhCTpNwRZPCBDZWoUulOWcGKmyOfU2LlQMEIHRAfw==
X-Received: by 2002:aa7:888e:0:b0:4fd:96f6:7f28 with SMTP id z14-20020aa7888e000000b004fd96f67f28mr12578656pfe.0.1648759257600; Thu, 31 Mar 2022 13:40:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (c-67-169-103-239.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [67.169.103.239]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a7-20020aa79707000000b004fb17ad3aefsm351058pfg.108.2022.03.31.13.40.56 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 31 Mar 2022 13:40:57 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: Tony Li <tony1athome@gmail.com>
From: Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>
Message-Id: <FB16D0A0-6FE9-4445-A0A6-BBDBBADF0C47@tony.li>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_23CBE49E-0BC2-4447-A736-01377A7C47F0"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 15.0 \(3693.60.0.1.1\))
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2022 13:40:56 -0700
In-Reply-To: <AM0PR07MB44977646CD925902A0A5D6A383E19@AM0PR07MB4497.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Cc: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>, detnet WG <detnet@ietf.org>, mpls <mpls@ietf.org>, "pals@ietf.org" <pals@ietf.org>
To: "Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" <wim.henderickx@nokia.com>
References: <14219_1648628199_624411E7_14219_65_1_c11c63ca0c7649a1ba55d96c03910cd5@orange.com> <DCC3C232-0C45-4541-BDD5-0EF51333F41E@tony.li> <22915_1648659581_62448C7D_22915_418_1_8ef3862f86024a26952e0b183e921360@orange.com> <B33092F8-5417-4E66-9616-A1FD17485B2A@juniper.net> <AM0PR07MB4497D16A36BCAF86C0906457831F9@AM0PR07MB4497.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CO1PR05MB8088A3BB0625E31EA00A3825C71F9@CO1PR05MB8088.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <AM0PR07MB4497F92905C22CE50453A9F483E19@AM0PR07MB4497.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CA+RyBmWUtX4F_=ntNQw2utpzQdSUq7cY6em-_DF2wgQupveDnA@mail.gmail.com> <FC6C0F13-FFCA-40DD-8297-7753F603C736@tony.li> <CA+RyBmWwYU+pj0df0sp3VZbZkDCKp6VBscoDBcr961MXL4QAQg@mail.gmail.com> <AM0PR07MB4497289E748653DAA23AEC2683E19@AM0PR07MB4497.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <F5DC1C83-638C-42EF-B353-DCB8194011F5@tony.li> <AM0PR07MB44977646CD925902A0A5D6A383E19@AM0PR07MB4497.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3693.60.0.1.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/ci7ochf8urfOT1-wIXg4VVYrGRU>
Subject: Re: [Detnet] [mpls] [Pals] draft-decraene-mpls-slid-encoded-entropy-label-id (was RE: Please review the PALS/MPLS/DetNet Joint Session minutes)
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, 31 Mar 2022 20:41:09 -0000

Wim,

> WH> not all HW has this capability or is very constraint without another compromise. This is in my view an important consideration to select the proposal


Understood, but without clear evidence of these limitations, it’s somewhat hard to justify limiting our approach.  The commonality of the hardware in relevant locations is key.  

If we find that Brand X has hardware limitations and there are a million deployed throughout service providers everywhere, that is worth noting.

If we find that Brand Y has hardware limitations, but is only deployed in 10 home offices world wide, it is inconsequential.

As always, we have to make tradeoffs using the data that we have at hand.  


> If that’s accurate, then we are a software upgrade away, regardless of which solution we select. The true hardware limitations will arise as we define more complex actions, which require more data that is not readily accessible, either because there is too much in-stack data or access to the post-stack data that cannot be done without a performance penalty, if at all.
>  
> WH> I don’t believe this is true with what we have on the table right now and this is why restate to start with Bruno’s proposal to start and go to a more advanced solution that can be supported with new HW capabiltiies.


Well, I would appreciate hard data.  I have had a hand in MPLS since day one and have seen many hardware designs along the way. There are many hardware platforms that have limitations on label stack depth. That is definitely a concern, but that is already an issue for the entropy label today.  I’m unaware of any hardware implementation that cannot support the use of a different bSPL.  I welcome education, but without clear contradictory evidence, not just opinion or unsupported assertion, the data that I have suggests that we effectively have a small Turing-equivalent processor operating on some significant chunk of the label stack.

Tony