Re: [Detnet] PREOF signaling

Tianran Zhou <> Mon, 14 February 2022 03:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D8F03A0D1D for <>; Sun, 13 Feb 2022 19:16:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.895
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 16VzPiFhG4C6 for <>; Sun, 13 Feb 2022 19:16:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7EB523A0D1C for <>; Sun, 13 Feb 2022 19:16:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (unknown []) by (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4Jxq9c1s45z67MSg for <>; Mon, 14 Feb 2022 11:15:48 +0800 (CST)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2308.21; Mon, 14 Feb 2022 04:16:05 +0100
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2308.21; Mon, 14 Feb 2022 11:16:03 +0800
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.01.2308.021; Mon, 14 Feb 2022 11:16:03 +0800
From: Tianran Zhou <>
To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [Detnet] PREOF signaling
Thread-Index: AQHYILLFcJloeKXx8E6/3eDt3wgNx6ySX9Cw
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2022 03:16:03 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_b7d484a10e15482183c68a2ef231ac7fhuaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Detnet] PREOF signaling
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions on Deterministic Networking BoF and Proposed WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2022 03:16:13 -0000

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?


From: detnet [] On Behalf Of Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2022 4:22 PM
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.



Début du message transféré :
De: IETF Secretariat <<>>
Date: 13 février 2022 à 09:04:11 UTC+1
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)