Re: [ippm] [spring] Progressing the PBT-M “Zero Overhead property” draft

[Gyan Mishra <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jingrong

Many thanks for reviewing the draft and your support and feedback and POV.

Yes we would like to see some more feedback from the community on PBT-M.

Thank you

Gyan

On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 10:02 PM Xiejingrong (Jingrong) <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Gyan,
>
>
>
> Thank you firstly for introducing this document to spring and to me (not
> subscribed IPPM yet ^-^).
>
> After read this draft and the discussions under this thread, I have
> recalled my understanding on passport, postcard (PBT-Mark, DEX).
>
> I think PBT-M is a useful approach for postcard telemetry in general, and
> Segment Routing is a solid use case for PBT-M to be adoption.  I like it
> and even prefer it personally.
>
>
>
> I feel that, 9326 is a big compromise and entanglement between passport
> and postcard. Please correct me if I understand it wrong.
>
> l  RFC9326 want to be “postcard” mode, as it states: This Option-Type is
> used as a trigger for IOAM data to be directly exported or locally
> aggregated without being pushed into in-flight data packets.
>
> l  RFC9326 reuses RFC9197 as a base, and RFC9197 starts from an
> “postcard” mode, as it states: IOAM records OAM information within the
> packet while the packet traverses a particular network domain.
>
>
>
> As I said above, I like and even prefer the idea of PBT-M, so I tend to
> agree with your points below, and I am willing to see the progress of this
> document.
>
> However, I don’t have that strong POV. I can live with 9326 and PBT-M of
> this document to be parallel, and I would also like to hear the view points
> from the community.
>
>
>
> “To make RFC 9326 viable out the gate for any operators to implement,  we
> really need the changes and updates to RFC 9326 described in this draft to
> be progressed.”
>
> “This draft should be and I think the authors of this draft as well as
> the authors of RFC 9326 would as well agree that this draft should be
> Standards Track and update the base specification RFC 9326 for PBT. ”
>
>
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Jingrong
>
>
>
>
> 本邮件及其附件可能含有华为公司的保密信息，仅限于发送给上面地址中列出的个人或群组。禁止任何其他人以任何形式使用（包括但不限于全部或部分地泄露、复制、或散发）本邮件中的信息。如果您错收了本邮件，请您立即电话或邮件通知发件人并删除本邮件！
> This e-mail and its attachments may contain confidential information from
> HUAWEI, which is intended only for the person or entity whose address is
> listed above. Any use of the information contained herein in any way
> (including, but not limited to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction,
> or dissemination) by persons other than the intended recipient(s) is
> prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender
> by phone or email immediately and delete it!
>
>
>
> *From:* spring [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *Gyan Mishra
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 14, 2022 11:25 AM
> *To:* IETF IPPM WG <[e-mail]>; SPRING WG <[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* [spring] Progressing the PBT-M “Zero Overhead property” draft
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear IPPM WG
>
>
>
> RE: Progressing draft-song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry-15
>
>
>
> I would like to provide some important feedback related to the draft and
> the critically of this draft to the industry at large especially with 5G
> MNOs and future soon to be 6G and UPF F1 interface network slicing and IPPM
> telemetry for Flex Algo latency constraint for ultra low latency path for
> MEC services and end to end ultra low latency path instantiation.
>
>
>
> My POV as well as others whom I have discussed the draft in and outside
> the WG is that in order to make PBT viable and useful to operators to
> deploy, the changes and improvements described in this draft are very
> important and not just to the IPPM WG but to the industry at large namely
> for deployments of Segment Routing both SR-MPLS and SRv6  and viability of
> IOAM in-situ telemetry.
>
>
>
> This is a huge issue today and PBT RFC 9326 is an attempt to solve the
> issues with telemetry with Segment Routing but unfortunately that is not
> enough and now with this draft, PBT based telemetry with Segment Routing
> can finally come to fruition for all operators around the world wanting to
> deploy Segment Routing.
>
>
>
> I think with SR both SR-MPLS and SRv6 MSD and SR-MPLS Maximum readable
> label depth issues and MPLS MNA extensibility discussed in the MPLS Open DT
> meetings are important issues and considerations and with IOAM data with
> DEX PBT solution can possibly resolves the issue with the export with zero
> in-situ overhead philosophy and is a fabulous attempt but with a major
> hitch.
>
>
>
> To make RFC 9326 viable out the gate for any operators to implement,  we
> really need the changes and updates to RFC 9326 described in this draft to
> be progressed.
>
>
>
> This draft should be and I think the authors of this draft as well as the
> authors of RFC 9326 would as well agree that this draft should be Standards
> Track and update the base specification RFC 9326 for PBT.
>
>
>
> I believe that would be the best path forward for the WG.
>
>
>
> All comments are welcome on this important topic.
>
>
>
> Many Thanks
>
>
>
> Gyan
>
> --
>
> [image: 图像已被发件人删除。] <http://www.verizon.com/>
>
> *Gyan Mishra*
>
> *Network Solutions Architect *
>
> *Email [e-mail] <[e-mail]>*
>
> *M 301 502-1347*
>
>
>
-- 

<http://www.verizon.com/>

*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *

*Email [e-mail] <[e-mail]>*



*M 301 502-1347*