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

[Tianran Zhou <[e-mail]>]

As we have questions about the performance of ISD and worry about the potential impact to existing MPLS network,  I think making it experimental is a good idea.
Hardware is not the problem at all.
We can firstly implement it with NP, and quickly get the field test.

Cheers,
Tianran

-----Original Message-----
From: Joel Halpern [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Monday, October 7, 2024 10:43 PM
To: Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: [mpls] Re: Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr (2nd WG call)

I understand the driver for suggesting experimental.  However, I am little concerned by this approach.  This forwarding is presumably typically supported in hardware.  While some hardware will have the identification adjustable, it does not seem at all clear that all, or even most, hardware will have that flexibility.   Asking implementors to respin software is something we do all the time, and is quite reasonable.  But asking folks to respin behavior that may be embedded in ASIC chips is both a major imposition and a significant backwards compatibility problem.

thus, while I sympathize with the suggest, I think we really need to publish this draft promptly as a Proposed Standard if we expect folks to implement it.

Yours,

Joel


On 10/7/2024 10:31 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
> I have been thinking the same.
>
> Hop by hop changes of this magnitude are a big deal.
>
> The safest option would be to run it as experimental protocol on an 
> ESPL. That way we can learn more about the design and its properties 
> and if we need to make a change we have plenty more ESPLs
>
> If the experiment succeeds we can move to PS with a BSPL.
>
> Stewart
>
>> On 7 Oct 2024, at 10:13 AM, IJsbrand Wijnands <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Dear MPLS WG,
>>
>> Given the nature of the changes to the MPLS architecture for supporting ISD in the data-plane, and the various concerns that have raised on the list, I believe that this document should be on the experimental track.
>>
>> I do not support publishing this document on standards track.
>>
>> Thx,
>>
>> Ice.
>>
>>> On 24 Sep 2024, at 15:25, Tarek Saad <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear WG,
>>>
>>> This email starts a two-week Working Group last call for 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])
>>> 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)
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> mpls mailing list -- [e-mail]
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>> _______________________________________________
>> mpls mailing list -- [e-mail]
>> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list -- [e-mail]
To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]