Re: [mpls] [spring] Special purpose labels in draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths

Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com> Thu, 16 November 2017 11:57 UTC

Return-Path: <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.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 9033B12947C; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 03:57:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.189
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.189 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=1.989, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01, T_FILL_THIS_FORM_SHORT=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (body has been altered)" header.d=eci365.onmicrosoft.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C72MSABHV-P7; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 03:57:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail1.bemta5.messagelabs.com (mail1.bemta5.messagelabs.com [195.245.231.145]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 47396129432; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 03:57:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [85.158.136.83] by server-9.bemta-5.messagelabs.com id 77/0A-25868-A1D7D0A5; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 11:57:14 +0000
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA1VTbUxTVxj29Pb2XIVrDgXkteKMNW74AdKo8ZK oY/NPnZPsh/shUfRW7mhnP7C3mPqZqtkWwR+YdNg2ZUxlss2PKSOCiCZWFETmUCMgCoqiUdDE SBRNQb23B507P948Oc/zPu9zTs7hGP0ObOAkr0dyO0W7UTdOO29SjTd94jY+N7OnKkGobTqCh ZMHW1nhZdkDVgh3LxG6fvuDFZraokgYqHuBs7HZHz3Bmk+FurG5svK1xtyx8wb+RpvL2pwWl3 ctaw3ebMaFp/Yy3r3ltTofKt3DFKNxnJb8yMDu0BtdMRrL6cnPGugsm6ASetKD4Cf/AKMSOrI Iqg93x0RJZDoMPH+sU0UMGdFAx2A9UolE8j20Ry8oDZwiWg++YRPV50DLsyqsYq3SG7x9mlUx T1bBkG+fjg6rZaDu6b3YsLFkNexsimpUjMgEGGo5EsMMSYGuvooYBkKgsuFfhuJkeHz/DUv1F rjzYD+i+1Mh0BPGFE+GaxUlSB0GpBHD0KNdo81zobi0gaV4OXTe9WP1AECmQc2j1VT/O4L2K9 FR09kQqj83GsIFhwJlmIqOIRg88EJHiV4W2iqWUaNUiJZkUU0QQ/PlCKZ3vQ6aw4PaUjQr9NH hKHbCw8E9TCh2SwlwKdinDSlWDJkBf9XPoZKp4C/pxRSnwQ/hcvzx/q8I/4nSZMm9UXKnmxZk WNy2AqvHIdrs6abM+RkOSZbFAskuWuSMdS5HNVIe3Bhl1aGrl5dG0EROY0zml0TjcvXjLa78T VZRtq5xF9klOYJSOc4IfMcWPlef4JYKJO93Nrvyat/TwMUbk3i8VaF5uVB0yLYCSrWgZdzF6u vDGu74zW6l1sXq2Vjta/9lRMM9DA74GL3W6XJKhhR+tzqBqBbWIueHAe9/xjU02ZDIIyWyPr5 Qcjtsnv/z/SiFQ8ZE/p7qEm9zej7k6FciapSICzvj1Ige8T/K4EOLc4oPNV561RYJ+Lr+bmv9 bN7180mOMn+6bC7xfZKfuoMUjZzJDF1Z1do/48nwvm+ThX82W8W8DYGw5e3R7Xfebvo07sy0F Yt7ag+v/KLpNifk9WZ/lZcT+NyEbpVve9bZN2VFdWR+fkLjl8tfi/udaVX5X9/qyJo9XjJkZU 9JbjjfVWPUylbRNJNxy+I7ml5TFxQEAAA=
X-Env-Sender: Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-12.tower-36.messagelabs.com!1510833428!118050566!1
X-Originating-IP: [52.27.180.120]
X-StarScan-Received:
X-StarScan-Version: 9.4.45; banners=ecitele.com,-,-
X-VirusChecked: Checked
Received: (qmail 16542 invoked from network); 16 Nov 2017 11:57:12 -0000
Received: from ec2-52-27-180-120.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com (HELO EUR01-HE1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com) (52.27.180.120) by server-12.tower-36.messagelabs.com with AES256-SHA256 encrypted SMTP; 16 Nov 2017 11:57:12 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ECI365.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-ecitele-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=fN3+I+Y+9qOekZIlmUMwgj8LpEQXcmM/ZgpocVfo8No=; b=ZkknrPOTqmC695pkeQ5L4kJ7rtsSQ5nEovLtxQjE6fFLpKUJr+Oq6BLrk1GMUDOd7CbHBqxq3m9udzzzbkSD5MCHA39sgHkWO+SrYUlyF7+8ylJbhnPI3QmCEFd3tZlCaCV55L5iklBRa9KCdWriIMN60fH4/KOwZK7a6pCyEh0=
Received: from AM4PR03MB1713.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.167.88.15) by AM5PR0301MB2561.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.169.149.16) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.20.218.12; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 11:57:06 +0000
Received: from AM4PR03MB1713.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::51e:9df0:75fb:d611]) by AM4PR03MB1713.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::51e:9df0:75fb:d611%14]) with mapi id 15.20.0239.005; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 11:57:06 +0000
From: Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>
To: John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>
CC: draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths <draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths@ietf.org>, spring <spring@ietf.org>, mpls <mpls@ietf.org>, Michael Gorokhovsky <Michael.Gorokhovsky@ecitele.com>, "draft-ietf-spring-oam-usecase@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-spring-oam-usecase@ietf.org>, "Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com>, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [mpls] [spring] Special purpose labels in draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths
Thread-Index: AQHTXj7p2nUnIXsOmkCuZ5PMoKj+8KMWQkuAgAAGK4CAAFlbgIAARAyAgAABXEA=
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 11:57:06 +0000
Message-ID: <AM4PR03MB17132551760021CCFDC8056E9D2E0@AM4PR03MB1713.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CA+RyBmUHAkuA3o-LpHhMwCbkh0k+emt9OZ3B8Njj2h=jaasTZw@mail.gmail.com> <3B1EE673-044F-4E47-9C56-6FF360905C58@cisco.com> <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE3047CEC9@NKGEML515-MBS.china.huawei.com> <CA+RyBmVC2OjEs-=1WsL13eBmycZtnYnM8ybSdmWhGPByLKNQfA@mail.gmail.com> <AM4PR03MB171328C37B726DE4AFF862D39D2E0@AM4PR03MB1713.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com> <MWHPR05MB35516C6A19A5938BBBD583B3C72E0@MWHPR05MB3551.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <MWHPR05MB35516C6A19A5938BBBD583B3C72E0@MWHPR05MB3551.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [147.234.241.1]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; AM5PR0301MB2561; 6:JhKkSWOcYHW7UIA8xFba5zB9cvEzRZQiYg3C/RdyZqbUt9WlWul0JYuSTDrJKABMKy2d5gCY/ds7fI++Lsd33SYhZNkPWOrv13IFfyL5M1fGCkSd3QyyIOXzj0Lh+V5LNcw9Eh0XoWGjYGjyoepwVt18uTuRX4XiMmFhYRdP94Wex9BTne1NsGJCRuZPFb+kGMiUJsnPpDu0qbZuMjJzAP/7nqeMJMzR4S52krfDZ6zhu2EemaO/helNIJWaM+eCSz3M+I3sjHhSjgoZ1aRHX1kRh3yddv04eH9YuthSn9Sj0JeHsvpTDxNQjTg51huDTk2ndL9gfJbVvTs9/Oslavj4caZTrCAJyXts+3spaJA=; 5:aUJPzaB7veX34t26nq5xWUyA6AZ6enOzl5ggB25QzOyxOD0AL7VQBA91bmN74RO1+4BEnMtNLgdkfaF5SbC/7+3YjgD1Hy5+WrR0lw1OM19UKeuyw8YpH8NRBtpGnCwNWoJT+cOUJkDeHWiihw0kAzxFQJX0TMYRtrSAkiOc7t8=; 24:WZfDBBeJNtdeBP/N34c/k6VxNdEA9BQFIKJmGHqXWpJJ7JuKBl9bMbTSaKOV69BKYZa2ZplJpRatNTQcflWtA1mdpDiJCGo6cNoha3D+LdI=; 7:EKcYqP87TgvtmJFjIcApVXpS9GzrPrzFkzRB0Qjqgqx5BpMeaAKslNOSiEcDEhY7VKdP2tND4xnqpFYPpAyIBf7CGG4Xp3oBIMF8T0r2MI4PWb4PoC8noYz6+diNdPdlEaccromoegIMGPPTMK0Ph14jnkiLoEP/2+LhquA7lwB8SBzA1oG9POvkuCkSoymmKBmk7LQPnRu9wzanLwb5Lxh61exTqKyqDM/OeUxnG16GluiR4lbGHeeRnWX+/yhr
x-ms-exchange-antispam-srfa-diagnostics: SSOS;SSOR;
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: bf899072-3b04-4bf8-f8fd-08d52ce928b5
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(22001)(4534020)(4602075)(4627115)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(48565401081)(2017052603199); SRVR:AM5PR0301MB2561;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: AM5PR0301MB2561:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <AM5PR0301MB2561A5D4728FBF0072F4EAD49D2E0@AM5PR0301MB2561.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(10436049006162)(138986009662008)(259379197776797)(95692535739014)(227612066756510)(21748063052155)(279101305709854)(50582790962513);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(100000700101)(100105000095)(100000701101)(100105300095)(100000702101)(100105100095)(6040450)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(93006095)(93001095)(100000703101)(100105400095)(3231022)(10201501046)(3002001)(6055026)(6041248)(20161123564025)(20161123555025)(20161123558100)(20161123562025)(201703131423075)(201702281528075)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123560025)(6072148)(201708071742011)(100000704101)(100105200095)(100000705101)(100105500095); SRVR:AM5PR0301MB2561; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(100000800101)(100110000095)(100000801101)(100110300095)(100000802101)(100110100095)(100000803101)(100110400095)(100000804101)(100110200095)(100000805101)(100110500095); SRVR:AM5PR0301MB2561;
x-forefront-prvs: 0493852DA9
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(376002)(346002)(39860400002)(252514010)(377424004)(51444003)(189002)(199003)(24454002)(93886005)(6246003)(3280700002)(15650500001)(2420400007)(5660300001)(39060400002)(19609705001)(478600001)(4326008)(966005)(4001150100001)(105586002)(8666007)(236005)(53936002)(1941001)(9686003)(6306002)(54896002)(6916009)(3660700001)(345774005)(8936002)(68736007)(2950100002)(99286004)(25786009)(316002)(7696004)(2906002)(86362001)(54906003)(97736004)(102836003)(50986999)(76176999)(54356999)(189998001)(606006)(33656002)(53546010)(6116002)(72206003)(14454004)(2900100001)(5250100002)(101416001)(3846002)(229853002)(74316002)(106356001)(7736002)(66066001)(230783001)(6506006)(790700001)(55016002)(81166006)(81156014)(7110500001)(6436002)(8676002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:AM5PR0301MB2561; H:AM4PR03MB1713.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: ecitele.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_AM4PR03MB17132551760021CCFDC8056E9D2E0AM4PR03MB1713eurp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: ecitele.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: bf899072-3b04-4bf8-f8fd-08d52ce928b5
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 16 Nov 2017 11:57:06.4184 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 2c514a61-08de-4519-b4c0-921fef62c42a
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: AM5PR0301MB2561
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/IntIYiu9VqPOWzJ6qTAUyepbvio>
Subject: Re: [mpls] [spring] Special purpose labels in draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mpls/>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 11:57:20 -0000

John,
I am fine with the name “SR Segment List ID”.

Regards,
Sasha

Office: +972-39266302
Cell:      +972-549266302
Email:   Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com

From: John E Drake [mailto:jdrake@juniper.net]
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 1:51 PM
To: Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>; Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Cc: draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths <draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths@ietf.org>; spring <spring@ietf.org>; mpls <mpls@ietf.org>; Michael Gorokhovsky <Michael.Gorokhovsky@ecitele.com>; draft-ietf-spring-oam-usecase@ietf.org; Zafar Ali (zali) <zali@cisco.com>
Subject: RE: [mpls] [spring] Special purpose labels in draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths

Sasha,

We did not use the term SR-TE LSP in our draft and I think it is misleading.  I suggested to Robert in another email that we use the term ‘SR Segment List’ since that is what the SR Architecture document describes.

Yours Irrespectively,

John

From: mpls [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alexander Vainshtein
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 3:12 AM
To: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com<mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>>
Cc: draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths <draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths@ietf.org<mailto:draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths@ietf.org>>; spring <spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>>; mpls <mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org>>; Michael Gorokhovsky <Michael.Gorokhovsky@ecitele.com<mailto:Michael.Gorokhovsky@ecitele.com>>; draft-ietf-spring-oam-usecase@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-spring-oam-usecase@ietf.org>; Zafar Ali (zali) <zali@cisco.com<mailto:zali@cisco.com>>
Subject: Re: [mpls] [spring] Special purpose labels in draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths

Greg,
I concur with your position: let’s first  of all agree that ability to measure traffic carried by an SR-TE LSP in a specific transit node is a require OAM function for SR.

I have looked up the SR OAM Use Cases<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Dspring-2Doam-2Dusecase_-3Finclude-5Ftext-3D1&d=DwMGaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=CRB2tJiQePk0cT-h5LGhEWH-s_xXXup3HzvBSMRj5VE&m=o9qv2My5eWygGvjkf_QsK_1IAw2Atjqea6_llVBKJEk&s=ifN9UpNTQHQoMWV6z0HBj3Wav-2yLAINnkkeydarDro&e=> draft, and I did not find any relevant use cases there.
The only time measurements are mentioned is a reference to an expired implementation report<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dleipnitz-2Dspring-2Dpms-2Dimplementation-2Dreport-2D00&d=DwMGaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=CRB2tJiQePk0cT-h5LGhEWH-s_xXXup3HzvBSMRj5VE&m=o9qv2My5eWygGvjkf_QsK_1IAw2Atjqea6_llVBKJEk&s=-HwWyJMbl3Zaa1RER9PwlKM4mv41ifM5TXFe_aAtPFk&e=> draft discussing delay measurements.  Since delay measurements are in any case based on synthetic traffic, and are always end-to-end (one-way or two-way), this reference is not relevant, IMHO, for this discussion.

I have added the authors of the SR OAM Use Cases draft to tis thread.

Regards,
Sasha

Office: +972-39266302
Cell:      +972-549266302
Email:   Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com<mailto:Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>

From: mpls [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Greg Mirsky
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 4:28 AM
To: Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com<mailto:xuxiaohu@huawei.com>>
Cc: draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths <draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths@ietf.org<mailto:draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths@ietf.org>>; spring <spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>>; Zafar Ali (zali) <zali@cisco.com<mailto:zali@cisco.com>>; mpls <mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [mpls] [spring] Special purpose labels in draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths

Dear All,
I cannot imagine that operators will agree to deploy network that lacks critical OAM tools to monitor performance and troubleshoot the network. True, some will brave the challenge and be the early adopters but even they will likely request that the OAM toolbox be sufficient to support their operational needs. I see that this work clearly describes the problem and why ability to quantify the flow behavior at internal nodes is important for efficient network operation. First let's discuss whether the case and requirement towards OAM is real and valid. Then we can continue to discussion of what measurement method to use.

Regards,
Greg

On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 10:05 AM, Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com<mailto:xuxiaohu@huawei.com>> wrote:
Concur. Although it has some values, it's not cost-efficient from my point of view. Network simplicity should be the first priority object. Hence we would have to make some compromise.

Best regards,
Xiaohu



________________________________
徐小虎 Xuxiaohu
M:+86-13910161692<tel:+86-13910161692>
E:xuxiaohu@huawei.com<mailto:xuxiaohu@huawei.com>
产品与解决方案-网络战略与业务发展部
Products & Solutions-Network Strategy & Business Development Dept
发件人: Zafar Ali (zali)
收件人: Greg Mirsky<gregimirsky@gmail.com<mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>>;draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths<draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths@ietf.org<mailto:draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths@ietf.org>>;mpls<mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org>>;spring<spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>>
主题: Re: [mpls] [spring] Special purpose labels in draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths
时间: 2017-11-16 02:24:10

Hi,

This draft breaks the SR architecture. I am quoting a snippet from abstract of SR Architecture document https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-13<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dietf-2Dspring-2Dsegment-2Drouting-2D13&d=DwMGaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=CRB2tJiQePk0cT-h5LGhEWH-s_xXXup3HzvBSMRj5VE&m=o9qv2My5eWygGvjkf_QsK_1IAw2Atjqea6_llVBKJEk&s=rUa_oHozfedMbkZ2PtR9f8PGmo2i2JykgBbtQvdBn8A&e=>, which states:
“SR allows to enforce a flow through any topological path while maintaining per-flow state only at the ingress nodes to the SR domain.”

In addition to creating states at transit and egress nodes, the procedure also affects the data plane and makes it unscalable. It also makes controller job much harder and error prune. In summary, I find the procedure very complex and unscalable.

Thanks

Regards … Zafar


From: spring <spring-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:spring-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com<mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>>
Date: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 11:10 AM
To: "draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths@ietf.org<mailto:draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths@ietf.org>" <draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths@ietf.org<mailto:draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths@ietf.org>>, "mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org>" <mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org>>, "spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>" <spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>>
Subject: [spring] Special purpose labels in draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths

Hi Shraddha,
thank you for very well written and thought through draft. I have these questions I'd like to discuss:
&#0;.       Have you thought of using not one special purpose label for both SR Path Identifier and SR Path Identifier+Source SID cases but request two special purpose labels, one for each case. Then the SR Path Identifier would not have to lose the bit for C flag.
&#0;.       And how you envision to collect the counters along the path? Of course, a Controller may query LSR for all counters or counters for the particular flow (SR Path Identifier+Source SID). But in addition I'd propose to use in-band mechanism, perhaps another special purpose label, to trigger the LSR to send counters of the same flow with the timestamp out-band to the predefined Collector.
&#0;.       And the last, have you considered ability to flush counters per flow. In Scalability Considerations you've stated that counters are maintained as long as collection of statistics is enabled. If that is on the node scope, you may have to turn off/on the collection to flush off some old counters. I think that finer granularity, per flow granularity would be useful for operators. Again, perhaps the flow itself may be used to signal the end of the measurement and trigger release of counters.
Regards,
Greg


___________________________________________________________________________

This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains information which is
CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If you have received this
transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, phone or fax, and then delete the original
and all copies thereof.
___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains information which is 
CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If you have received this 
transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, phone or fax, and then delete the original 
and all copies thereof.
___________________________________________________________________________