[mpls] Re: Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr (2nd WG call)

["Dongjie (Jimmy)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tony,

Thanks for sharing information about the discontinuance of Tofino.  It shows implementation experience with other chips would be more important.

That said, the issues found with the Tofino based implementation can be common. Without further implementation information, it’s hard to convince people whether those issues have be addressed or not, and whether there is new issue introduced in recent revisions.

Running code is the spirit of IETF. Since MNA brings significant changes to MPLS, implementation would definitely help with the protocol maturity in this case.

Best regards,
Jie

From: Tony Li <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Tony Li
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2024 12:48 AM
To: Dongjie (Jimmy) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Tarek Saad <[e-mail]>; mpls <[e-mail]>; mpls-chairs <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr (2nd WG call)


[WG chair hat: on]

Hi Jie,

That implementation experience was based on their implementation for the Tofino architecture, which has subsequently been discontinued by the manufacturer.
(https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/content-details/827577/intel-tofino-products-pcn-827577-00-product-discontinuance-tofino-end-of-life.html)

I’m unaware of any other publicly documented implementations, but more importantly the MPLS WG does not have an implementation requirement. As you know, MPLS is a highly competitive area and vendors are unlikely to disclose implementations before going public with them, and silicon lifecycles are typically quite long.

Regards,
Tony



On Sep 26, 2024, at 9:28 AM, Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.dong=[e-mail]<mailto:jie.dong=[e-mail]>> wrote:

Hi Tarek,

Before the 1st WG LC, some implementation experience with the -04 version of this draft was presented on an interim meeting: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2024-mpls-01/session/mpls. That implementation was from Academia.

As shown in the meeting materials, the implementors met some challenges with the encodings in -04 version, they asked some questions and also gave some proposals for possible optimization. As part of the WG LC, it would be important to check whether the issues raised at that time have be addressed by the latest version. It would be helpful if some feedback on the latest version can be provided by those implementors.

At IETF 120 I asked one question about the implementation report. Are we aware of any other implementation of this document, besides the implementation of the -04 version from Academia? This would be important to gauge the maturity of the document and the interest in implementing it.

Best regards,
Jie

From: Tarek Saad <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2024 9:25 PM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: MPLS Working Chairs <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: [mpls] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr (2nd WG call)

Dear WG,

This email starts a two-week Working Group last call for draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr/>. This is the 2nd WG last call for this document.
Please indicate your support or concern for this draft. If you are opposed to the progression of the draft to RFC, please articulate your concern. If you support it, please indicate that you have read the latest version, and it is ready for publication in your opinion. As always, review comments and nits are most welcome.

Please send your comments to the mpls WG mailing list ([e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>).
If necessary, comments may be sent unidirectional to the WG chairs.

Note, currently there are 5 IPR disclosures against this document at https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr

This poll runs until October 8, 2024.

Thank you,
Tarek (for the MPLS WG co-chairs)