IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li> Fri, 27 September 2024 04:20 UTC

Return-Path: <tony1athome@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 643FBC1519BB; Thu, 26 Sep 2024 21:20:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.756
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.756 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id c1aWTaNB0Qtn; Thu, 26 Sep 2024 21:20:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pl1-x62d.google.com (mail-pl1-x62d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 74408C151072; Thu, 26 Sep 2024 21:20:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pl1-x62d.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-2059204f448so16123835ad.0; Thu, 26 Sep 2024 21:20:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1727410842; x=1728015642; darn=ietf.org; h=references:to:cc:in-reply-to:date:subject:mime-version:message-id :from:sender:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=aB0mv44C++WlrTw6DC1GVVDoTh134JcyQXoRtOjdKl0=; b=b2ZkL6lCrmR2r8aJ9SpZ6qDwLqFQidQpMg291Nzh96g0wUmn6qZmc3N+X0w4okNSYd xUcdMEEdsUuor+aUZuG2jiGSag63kAVNkVDbE8Mi44spoGqm0sffR9qY4kpOOilKxNrs 406hMFaKwhTpoSy0kD4VSYQSOmRgh3+hjQ9m8C+bSVfHkyaCsRWbPWTaqXWB0ql+rKcq GgnMWbY3Z8TgfAzF+Qcfhd8hczdfV5KwH3VELgLeDOVd9h7/0un7HlUMa9WOX2Fhf5TE 3kOmJT5ApOb2QzamCBReHFnPBSHsFB8MgHapn8te1qproIldprtefTz9RlYf/7jhPnS4 5T1Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1727410842; x=1728015642; h=references:to:cc:in-reply-to:date:subject:mime-version:message-id :from:sender:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=aB0mv44C++WlrTw6DC1GVVDoTh134JcyQXoRtOjdKl0=; b=p9pys3du5s7LbYJDaj7USMS1A96v8pJRtlnQYZ+gn2aqoyb7A9NDq4SvdlH8HnGyHP 4cxJWb7lF/MJcPq2uYQG2N1rRVqQxMMKu7tnLF9UbMZYdVIFNqex8r7nJUgiA5cc3CIU iPI8lStmXewq8Tcng0SDz1QcCl96Ozdhb/HLQUY+z56TqSwQliOU87YUxp6B4nlSNnpT CPEE6s2PM4J9asHFMMyOy18ooZus8A8t4lqQCVYSnY1r/4GfqYUchMLrC7THaTPrePMh y/3s0U1Vm/yGzMDYwnmJOBu2XC0BapWZLHiejeFyUL7jO3oeFfnmH6lHS/LcbiWtS39M 48sw==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCV8LGEpL/fmD/juTcx5JP6dEB+YwBgl2XB3ctexP5FKzHT2JJ5cXCtbt5RfhEwwS0c3LjrQAGY5eY3jnck=@ietf.org, AJvYcCW9W6yxEjmMrGHVZgLVrJSHa6ISHjBB8kVHJNu/VzJuvj1QxaYYm8K1hJRIGANlVyciUOH98XD1K2RaH7xGSgV8R4uPuFPdSw==@ietf.org, AJvYcCWWX469pRQcdDI29HsURKmeuYvqT3IldYMoyarvnXwLYlmEWr7lF5DP64T+Uye4mjtaHL0cLg==@ietf.org
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yy8CSugLbNKNvFJDyfGoH6zUI81789lbBqheMQTqH0YbgD4Ef7z SjJLBcxpVBzvVOShCHESYNtVu2Utb92pYOuf570RjJjyBucVr5VH
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFrmMSfbcVHtGDg6Iy02OgKA1jsw1Aai2vH68KO9nZnOTWg+ihvR3ERqk3FSUFKI3dpsXjfUw==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:ec8e:b0:20b:b21:10a with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-20b3739439amr25920035ad.32.1727410841706; Thu, 26 Sep 2024 21:20:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (c-73-93-167-4.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [73.93.167.4]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d9443c01a7336-20b37d6717fsm5699925ad.14.2024.09.26.21.20.40 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 26 Sep 2024 21:20:41 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: Tony Li <tony1athome@gmail.com>
From: Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>
Message-Id: <E778FF74-A9BC-40E6-95D2-F4AB95EE2129@tony.li>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_3AEBC9E5-3F34-4275-BA12-69649BD2DD58"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3818.100.11.1.3\))
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2024 21:20:30 -0700
In-Reply-To: <6e8e39e041c84e6d83a8cfa7f820f47f@huawei.com>
To: "Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.dong@huawei.com>
References: <DS0PR19MB65014515D511B396E79BA36FFCF82@DS0PR19MB6501.namprd19.prod.outlook.com> <LV8P220MB1914BBB4896362040615CAB2FC6F2@LV8P220MB1914.NAMP220.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <5f5db9a20d8e4b47b5515b686e834227@huawei.com> <FE99024D-D8D6-49CB-950A-393151743A0E@tony.li> <6e8e39e041c84e6d83a8cfa7f820f47f@huawei.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3818.100.11.1.3)
Message-ID-Hash: PGSKE6SUUY7NUZPMA34ZCJEXTECO4EOD
X-Message-ID-Hash: PGSKE6SUUY7NUZPMA34ZCJEXTECO4EOD
X-MailFrom: tony1athome@gmail.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-mpls.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: mpls <mpls@ietf.org>, mpls-chairs <mpls-chairs@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [mpls] Re: Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr (2nd WG call)
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/EY8JYrWRm5UZD-tGBfYvAY5JNuc>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mpls>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:mpls-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:mpls-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:mpls-leave@ietf.org>

[WG chair hat: off]

Hi Jie,

> 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.  


Well, I don’t need more information.  We’ve had Broadcom look it over. They raised no issues. We’ve had our internal folks look it over. They have no issues. I’m sure others have done the same.

I will happily and unilaterally disclose that the Procket NPU would have no issues with it (with adequate recirculation — 1999 technology), but then finding a Procket NPU these days is rather challenging. I will also happily vouch that a Z-80, Motorola 68000, or x86 would also have no issues with it.

If you feel that implementation experience is important, please feel free to share your experience. 

Regards,
Tony

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status