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

Hi all,

Yes, this is a useful document for telemetry use-cases where no metadata is
carried in the packet.
One comment I have is that the document may add some text on ECMP
considerations.

Happy Holidays!

Thanks,
Rakesh

On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 4:09 AM Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran=
40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> Hi Gyan,
>
>
>
> Thanks very much for raising this discussion in the mailing list.
>
> As discussed in the document, there are pros and cons both for PBT-M and
> PBT-I(IOAM-DEX).
>
> I really think this is useful, especially when the network is MTU
> sensitive or not powerful, like DetNet.
>
> I think the WG should progress it as a standard document.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Tianran
>
>
>
>
>
> *发件人:* ippm [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] *代表 *Gyan Mishra
> *发送时间:* 2022年12月14日 11:25
> *收件人:* IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>; SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>
> *主题:* [ippm] 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
>
> --
>
> <http://www.verizon.com/>
>
> *Gyan Mishra*
>
> *Network Solutions Architect *
>
> *Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com <gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com>*
>
> *M 301 502-1347*
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> ippm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
>