Re: [mpls] Comments on draft draft-cheng-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation

[Giuseppe Fioccola <[e-mail]>]

Hi All,
I agree with Greg. And there are at least 3 big differences between IOAM/IOAM-DEX and Alternate Marking:
1) IOAM/IOAM-DEX is a packet level monitoring while Alternate Marking is a flow monitoring solution
2) IOAM/IOAM-DEX introduces a new encapsulation while Alternate Marking can be encapsulated more easily and with less overhead (e.g. dedicated bits or TLV)
3) IOAM/IOAM-DEX architecture is more static (i.e. data specified by the IOAM-Trace-Type are exported by the nodes) while Alternate Marking includes a dynamic approach and can be adapted to the network conditions (i.e. draft-ietf-ippm-multipoint-alt-mark)

Best Regards,

Giuseppe

From: mpls [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Greg Mirsky
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2019 8:07 AM
To: Rakesh Gandhi <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [mpls] Comments on draft draft-cheng-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation

Hi Rakesh, et al.,
I don't consider AltMark/SFL as just a lighter version of DEX. One of the benefits of Alt.Marking, in my opinion, is that a node may be aggregating measurements, and export not the raw data, as with DEX, but calculated performance metrics.

Regards,
Greg

On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 2:57 PM Rakesh Gandhi <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi Tianran,
Thanks for your reply. But this does not answer my question:)
Question is why a light way is required when there is already direct export IOAM available.

Regarding the SFL comment, when SFLs are used, we do not need L/D flags in the header for coloring, as an SFL itself indicates the color.

Thanks,
Rakesh


On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 1:57 PM Tianran Zhou <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi Rakesh,

Thanks for your interest.
I think the requirement of using alternate marking for mpls pm has already been acknowledged by this wg. As Tarek mentioned several times, the SFL is produced for this usage.
We bring a new encapsulation here to mitigate the deployment issue when we try to apply the SFL.
That’s our simple motivation.

BR,
Tianran

发件人: Rakesh Gandhi [mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>]
发送时间: 2019年11月18日 6:20
收件人: Tianran Zhou <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
抄送: Weiqiang Cheng <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Tarek Saad <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
主题: Re: [mpls] Comments on draft draft-cheng-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation

Hi Tianran,
Thanks for your reply.
Right, IOAM Direct Export covers more than just PM. Both drafts would also require special labels for the direct export for MPLS case. With this in mind, you may clarify in the draft why lite way is required for PM for MPLS case and how it is achieved with your draft compared to the IOAM direct export.
Thanks,
Rakesh




On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 12:44 PM Tianran Zhou <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi Rakesh,

As the coauthor of both drafts, I think they are different.
This draft is only for performance measurement in a lite way.
IOAM-DEX is to collect data based on the trace type instruction.

Thanks,
Tianran

发件人: Rakesh Gandhi [mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>]
发送时间: 2019年11月13日 5:12
收件人: Weiqiang Cheng <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
抄送: Tarek Saad <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
主题: Re: [mpls] Comments on draft draft-cheng-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation

Hi Authors,
FYI:
The draft has some similarity with the functionality defined in the following draft which is generically applicable to the all encap types:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ioamteam-ippm-ioam-direct-export-00

You may want to have a look.

Thanks,
Rakesh




On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 3:00 AM Weiqiang Cheng <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi Tarek,
Thank you very much for your comments.
We authors had some discussion on it and our feedback is in-line.

B.R.
Weiqiang Cheng

发件人: mpls [mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>] 代表 Tarek Saad
发送时间: 2019年7月22日 21:34
收件人: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
抄送: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
主题: [mpls] Comments on draft draft-cheng-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation

Hi authors,

From reading your draft, have the following comments:

  *   There’s a similar proposal in draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sfl that the WG has worked on to achieve similar PM measurements. That proposal did not require a special label, nor requires carrying 2 new additional labels in label stack. Do you see any downside to the approach in draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sfl vs. the new one introduced one? If so, can this be highlighted...

[Weiqiang]   Yes, the SFL proposal was carefully considered before this draft was written, and the major downsides of SFL include:

1. It seems that the current version of SFL targets at end-to-end performance measurement,  but our draft targets at both end-to-end and hop-by-hop performance measurement. Of course, someone may argue that the SFL can be extended to support hop-by-hop performance measurement, but if that happens, the SFL method is too complex for label management, because basically it assigns two implications to one mpls label.

2. The SFL method can't be applied when we want to achieve performance measurements on both LSP and PW synchronously, but the method described in our draft can simply achieve that.


  *   It appears that the label below the “Flow Indicator Label” is used to carry/embed context information: including a flow identifier and additional flags - that are set by ingress. Normally, MPLS labels do not embed any context information about the flow they carry within them. The context of the label is held by the node that allocates the label.

[Weiqiang]   Your understanding is perfectly correct. And please also note that in our draft the Flow-ID label values are allocated by an external NMS or a controller, that means the context of the Flow-ID label is held by all the nodes within the administrative domain. Furthermore, I want to stress that the method described in our draft has already been implemented by more than two vendors, and we plan to deploy it in our commercial 5G backhaul networks.


Regards,
Tarek
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls