Re: [mpls] Concerns about ISD

Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com> Wed, 13 April 2022 07:16 UTC

Return-Path: <zhoutianran@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16DC13A20B2 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Apr 2022 00:16:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.906
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.906 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 43e7YsrnnA7H for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Apr 2022 00:16:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E047E3A20AF for <mpls@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Apr 2022 00:16:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fraeml704-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.207]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4KdYk24JmPz689QL; Wed, 13 Apr 2022 15:14:18 +0800 (CST)
Received: from kwepemi100010.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.54) by fraeml704-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.53) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2375.24; Wed, 13 Apr 2022 09:16:24 +0200
Received: from kwepemi500009.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.199) by kwepemi100010.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.54) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2375.24; Wed, 13 Apr 2022 15:16:22 +0800
Received: from kwepemi500009.china.huawei.com ([7.221.188.199]) by kwepemi500009.china.huawei.com ([7.221.188.199]) with mapi id 15.01.2375.024; Wed, 13 Apr 2022 15:16:22 +0800
From: Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com>
To: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
CC: John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>, Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [mpls] Concerns about ISD
Thread-Index: AdhKc4fdvDv9lzMNTfy5c++8iNI9i///poSA//7GfeCAAt4vgP/7wPiAgAhY2QD//2GkAAAn72wA//7TxPD//eE1gP/7NOOg//aGzID/67yBQP/X6WkA/678jdA=
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 07:16:22 +0000
Message-ID: <26b4c2ab395c42c7be780ed1e6dc67dd@huawei.com>
References: <6cc272447d2f4c779e85d5c42d3b3c6c@huawei.com> <8623637D-A32E-47A4-B5FC-4D2CF40BEDD1@tony.li> <6199e0e886f9437c95ef9b70719b00ec@huawei.com> <BCFD3F4A-36D6-47C2-B907-FC40B402F97C@tony.li> <3fb1f261ddff48deb0c2ea083cdbd16f@huawei.com> <6B96F21B-9331-4FA8-AD7B-84A4CA8B6FAB@tony.li> <903c57a48280454091495673ec2fe275@huawei.com> <BD5C1BE7-4633-4B51-BAC1-B2AE1C537F36@tony.li> <ad6b8c42b0aa4880b9dee02516f5e46f@huawei.com> <F5BB2CEB-CC8C-4E71-A2E7-B4212878C3B1@tony.li> <aa9c4b913d844410b2af90c8db78c194@huawei.com> <BY3PR05MB8081937B52E657713E8293BFC7ED9@BY3PR05MB8081.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <a29c96be774845e582a66700d2264f7b@huawei.com> <CA+RyBmXtz1bDE+_YifueKoHg-ji=24rQGc9+LUESMnZL4cz4dg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+RyBmXtz1bDE+_YifueKoHg-ji=24rQGc9+LUESMnZL4cz4dg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.112.40.195]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_26b4c2ab395c42c7be780ed1e6dc67ddhuaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/-fwejpfw_cYqhPfCGRuKauo-PXM>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Concerns about ISD
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mpls/>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 07:16:35 -0000

Hi Greg,

Please see my thoughts in line.

Cheers,
Tianran


From: Greg Mirsky [mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2022 10:10 AM
To: Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com>
Cc: John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>; Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>; mpls@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mpls] Concerns about ISD

Hi Tianran,
I have got several questions based on the discussion we had of the use cases and hope you could share your opinion:

  *   Do you see a benefit of supporting EL using NMA? If EL is supported by NMA, should it be in ISD or PSD?
ZTR> I do not see the “benefit”.  I think EL is a mature thing, already implemented everywhere. There is no need to duplicate.

  *   If NMA supports GISS, where do you see it - ISD or PSD?
ZTR> I will use PSD to support slicing, as this one: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-li-mpls-enhanced-vpn-vtn-id-02.

  *   If NMA to support IOAM in MPLS be only Preallocated Trace Option and Direct Export types, would you consider carrying the IOAM Header in ISD?
ZTR> I am not going to use ISD for IOAM. At first look, IOAM data format is already specified.  I do not see how to encode into ISD, with inconsecutive space(S bit in between).
Regards,
Greg

On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 6:17 PM Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran=40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote:
Hi,

Comments in line.

Tianran



Juniper Business Use Only
From: mpls <mpls-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Tianran Zhou
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2022 2:36 AM
To: Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li<mailto:tony.li@tony.li>>
Cc: mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Concerns about ISD

[External Email. Be cautious of content]

Hi Tony,

>>Pushing data to PSD and beyond the RLSD will cause systems to be excluded from the path or take a significant performance hit.

If I know the RLSD of each node, there are many ways to prevent some nodes from pushing data to PSD.

[JD]  Given that you *only* want to use PSD, what is the above sentence proposing?

ZTR> If you followed the past few emails, Tony misled people that PSD will hinder the interoperability. I just show you how PSD will not. According to your description below on the ISD process, it’s the same as PSD somehow. I did not see the ISD advantage.

I would like to know how ISD could survive if the ISD exceed the RLSD?

[JD]  The correct term is Network Actions  Sub-stack (NAS).  To answer your question, a transit node will miss the NAS regardless of whether it contains in-stack data.  This is the point that Tony has been making for the past few email iterations

ZTR> Creating new terms does not help the community. I do not care the fancy term you created. Could you please point me out how many times Tony has clarified the ISD process? And where they are? I may have missed.
In my brain, Tony did not address any of my concerns on ISD, but only kept ignoring the fact I presented. It’s not a good way for technique discussion.

Best,
Tianran

From: Tony Li [mailto:tony1athome@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Tony Li
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2022 2:03 PM
To: Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com<mailto:zhoutianran@huawei.com>>
Cc: mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Concerns about ISD


Hi Tianran,

ZTR2> PSD can work with RLSD, I cannot see how it will hinder the interoperability.


Pushing data to PSD and beyond the RLSD will cause systems to be excluded from the path or take a significant performance hit.

Tony

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls