[mpls] Re: Request WG adoption for draft-jags-mpls-ps-mna-hdr-03.txt

[Tianran Zhou <[e-mail]>]

Hi Greg,

I mean IOAM preallocated tracing has predicted length. In this sense, there is no difference with SR and other MNA cases.
What’s the I2E stands for?

Best,
Tianran

From: Greg Mirsky [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2024 8:49 AM
To: Tianran Zhou <[e-mail]>
Cc: Haoyu Song <[e-mail]>; mpls <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Zhukeyi(Kaiyin,Datacom Standard&Patent) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Re: Request WG adoption for draft-jags-mpls-ps-mna-hdr-03.txt

Hi Tianran,
can you help me understanding how the IOAM Preallocated Trace Option-Type mitigates the MSD constraint? Personally, I think that any PSD-based solution can reliably work only for I2E scope. Am I missing something?

Regards,
Greg

On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 5:38 PM Tianran Zhou <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi Greg,

I think the IOAM pre-allocated tracing mode can mitigate the MSD issue.
How about we only apply this mode in MNA?

Tianran

From: Greg Mirsky [mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>]
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2024 7:41 AM
To: Haoyu Song <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: mpls <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: [mpls] Re: Request WG adoption for draft-jags-mpls-ps-mna-hdr-03.txt

Hi Haoyu,
I find the argument "We don't care about your problem" unusual for an environment striving to reach, although rough, consensus nevertheless. MSD is a well-known network constraint that, I suspect, would not go away very soon (similar to using the label stack to generate entropy in the ECMP environment). MSD is real, and we must consider it when making design decisions. I don't think that operators will look favorably at a technology that requires the forklift upgrade of a network.

Regards,
Greg

On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 4:31 PM Haoyu Song <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Greg,
A feature having severe performance impact to one device doesn’t necessarily mean it has the same issue to others’ devices. Also, not everyone must implement it. It’s all about user’s preference, capability, and choice.

Best,
Haoyu
From: Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2024 1:06 PM
To: Haoyu Song <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: Joel Halpern <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Loa Andersson <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; mpls <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Re: Request WG adoption for draft-jags-mpls-ps-mna-hdr-03.txt

Hi Haoyu,
I am surprised that the proponents of PSD-based solution use limited impact on the MPLS label stack depth as an argument while seemingly ignoring the MSD issue that, in my opinion, might have more severe impact on degrading the forwarding performance of the already deployed networking devices.

Regards,
Greg

On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 12:59 PM Haoyu Song <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi Joel,

I think it's important to support IOAM DEX as specified in RFC9326. I don't think it can still be called IOAM DEX if the header format is changed in order to fit it in ISD.  As Rakesh has explained, the header itself is extensible, and the header size is large with options. Both these make it unsuitable for ISD.

Best,
Haoyu

-----Original Message-----
From: Joel Halpern <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2024 12:35 PM
To: Loa Andersson <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; mpls <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: [mpls] Re: Request WG adoption for draft-jags-mpls-ps-mna-hdr-03.txt

Loa, you list three bullet points with three different results. However, what has been shown so far seems to correspond to your first case, which you state does not justify two solutions. Adopting a post-stack data solution before we decide we are in case three, or in case 2 and feel the tradeoff is right, seems premature.   It may well be that the ps draft is the right starting point once we have agreed on the problems to be solved. Which is why I am trying to understand the motivations for Rakesh' iOAM dex draft.  (I do think we need to support IOAM DEX.)

Yours,

Joel

On 6/26/2024 3:30 PM, Loa Andersson wrote:
> Jags, authors, chairs, working group,
>
>
> I support making draft-jags-mpls-ps-mna-hdr a working group document.
>
> It has repeatedly been said by those who want ISD-solutions that
> PSD-solutions ar not needed.
>
> I think this is a fundamentally flawed way of asking the question.
>
> - if we have a choice between two solutions and they are equally good
>   for all cases, then it makes sense to try to find consensus for
> adopting
>   one of the solutions
> - if we have a choice between two solutions there both solutions "can
> do" all
>   cases, but there one is significantly better for one set of cases
> and the
>   other is significantly better for the remaining cases, we should
> cases we
>    should seriously consider going for two solutions.
> - if we we have the a choice between two solutions there one can solve
> part of
>   the cases and the other the remaining cases, the we need to go for two
>   solutions.
>
> /Loa
>
>
> Den 2024-06-26 kl. 04:50, skrev Jaganbabu Rajamanickam (jrajaman):
>>
>> Hello Chairs,
>>
>>    We would like to request WG adoption for draft-jags-mpls-ps-mna-hdr.
>>
>>    Updated the draft with the initial review comments and the latest
>> MNA header format.
>>
>>   Welcome your review comments and suggestions.
>>
>> Thanx,
>>
>> Jags
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> mpls mailing list -- [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list -- [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list -- [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>