[mpls] Re: Poll: IOAM and PSD

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Hi Loa,
could you please clarify when you state

Which would place it higher in priority of "to be implemented"
secifications than draft-mb-mpls-ioam-dex.

you express:

   - your personal opinion
   - position of a company you are currently affiliated with
   - something else

Regards,
Greg

On Sun, Aug 11, 2024 at 8:26 PM Loa Andersson <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Haoyu,
>
> It is not the BoS bit only. Since uses type D LSEs, the zero bit is
> already in use. Set to "1" to avoid confusion with Special Purpose
> Labels, so only 22 bits for flags.
>
> Another thing is that RFC RFC 9326 specifies 8 extension flags, while
> draft-mb-mpls-ioam-dex only have 6 flags. Ity should be noted that
> draft-gandhi-mpls-mna-ioam-dex nicely aligns with RFC 9326. Which would
> place it higher in priority of "to be implemented" secifications than
> draft-mb-mpls-ioam-dex.
> /Loa
> Den 12/08/2024 kl. 09:39, skrev Haoyu Song:
> > Yes. The BOS bit in the label field changes a lot of things.
> >
> > Haoyu
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2024 8:26 PM
> > To: Haoyu Song <[e-mail]>; Tony Li <[e-mail]>;
> mpls <[e-mail]>
> > Subject: Re: [mpls] Re: Poll: IOAM and PSD
> >
> > Haoyu,
> >
> > do you mean that since specification of IOAM-DEX (RFC 9326) following
> > RFC9197 specifies
> >
> > - IOAM-Trace-Types of 24 bit flag fields And Optional Fields - Flow ID
> > 32 bits - Sequence Number 32 bits And draft-mb-mpls-ioam-dex specifies -
> IOAM Trace Types of 22 flag bits And optional fields - Flow ID 30 bits -
> sequence number 11 bits (variable) That draft-mb-mpls-ioam-dex is strictly
> not compatible with RFC 9326? /Loa Den 09/08/2024 kl. 07:35, skrev Haoyu
> Song:
> >> Hi Tony,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> My response is inline.
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Haoyu
> >>
> >> *From:* Tony Li <[e-mail]> *On Behalf Of *Tony Li
> >> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 30, 2024 8:26 AM
> >> *To:* mpls <[e-mail]>
> >> *Subject:* [mpls] Poll: IOAM and PSD
> >>
> >> [WG chair hat: on]
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> We’ve had many discussions about IOAM and PSD over the last few years.
> >> We need to reach consensus on the problems that need to be addressed
> >> in these areas. Therefore, we would like to hear from everyone,
> >> especially independent operators:
> >>
> >>   1. There are many flavors of IOAM.  Which ones would you like to
> >>      deploy/implement with MNA?
> >>
> >> [HS] I’d like MNA to support IOAM DEX and Trace option as specified in
> >> RFC9326 and RFC9197 using PSD. The reasons are:
> >>
> >>       1. Comply with existing standards, can be directly used without
> >>          any hassle
> >>       2. Support potential cross-domain interoperation (e.g., cross the
> >>          boundary of MPLS domain and non-MPLS domain)
> >>       3. IOAM trace (i.e., the passport mode) is very useful in many
> >>          realtime measurement/congestion control applications (e.g.,
> >>          HPCC and tons of published research papers), therefore it has
> >>          great potential for future wider application.
> >>
> >>   2. Do you have other applications of MNA that have not been proposed
> yet?
> >>
> >> [HS] I’d like to see a simple flag-based action to support the
> >> postcard mode telemetry.
> >>
> >> I’d like also see the support of application level ID and metadata to
> >> better support the application-aware networking.
> >>
> >>   This poll will close in two weeks, at 9am PDT, Aug 13.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> MPLS chairs
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> mpls mailing list -- [e-mail]
> >> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> > --
> > Loa Andersson
> > Senior MPLS Expert
> > Bronze Dragon Consulting
> > [e-mail]
> > [e-mail]
> >
>
> --
> Loa Andersson
> Senior MPLS Expert
> Bronze Dragon Consulting
> [e-mail]
> [e-mail]
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>