[mpls] Re: Request WG adoption for draft-jags-mpls-ps-mna-hdr-03.txt

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tianran,
can you help me understanding how the IOAM Preallocated Trace Option-Type
mitigates the MSD constraint? Personally, I think that any PSD-based
solution can reliably work only for I2E scope. Am I missing something?

Regards,
Greg

On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 5:38 PM Tianran Zhou <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Greg,
>
>
>
> I think the IOAM pre-allocated tracing mode can mitigate the MSD issue.
>
> How about we only apply this mode in MNA?
>
>
>
> Tianran
>
>
>
> *From:* Greg Mirsky [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 27, 2024 7:41 AM
> *To:* Haoyu Song <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* mpls <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> *Subject:* [mpls] Re: Request WG adoption for
> draft-jags-mpls-ps-mna-hdr-03.txt
>
>
>
> Hi Haoyu,
>
> I find the argument "We don't care about your problem" unusual for an
> environment striving to reach, although rough, consensus nevertheless. MSD
> is a well-known network constraint that, I suspect, would not go away very
> soon (similar to using the label stack to generate entropy in the ECMP
> environment). MSD is real, and we must consider it when making design
> decisions. I don't think that operators will look favorably at a technology
> that requires the forklift upgrade of a network.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 4:31 PM Haoyu Song <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> Greg,
>
> A feature having severe performance impact to one device doesn’t
> necessarily mean it has the same issue to others’ devices. Also, not
> everyone must implement it. It’s all about user’s preference, capability,
> and choice.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Haoyu
>
> *From:* Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 26, 2024 1:06 PM
> *To:* Haoyu Song <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>; Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>; mpls
> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [mpls] Re: Request WG adoption for
> draft-jags-mpls-ps-mna-hdr-03.txt
>
>
>
> Hi Haoyu,
>
> I am surprised that the proponents of PSD-based solution use limited
> impact on the MPLS label stack depth as an argument while seemingly
> ignoring the MSD issue that, in my opinion, might have more severe impact
> on degrading the forwarding performance of the already deployed networking
> devices.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 12:59 PM Haoyu Song <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Joel,
>
> I think it's important to support IOAM DEX as specified in RFC9326. I
> don't think it can still be called IOAM DEX if the header format is changed
> in order to fit it in ISD.  As Rakesh has explained, the header itself is
> extensible, and the header size is large with options. Both these make it
> unsuitable for ISD.
>
> Best,
> Haoyu
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2024 12:35 PM
> To: Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>; mpls <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]
> Subject: [mpls] Re: Request WG adoption for
> draft-jags-mpls-ps-mna-hdr-03.txt
>
> Loa, you list three bullet points with three different results. However,
> what has been shown so far seems to correspond to your first case, which
> you state does not justify two solutions. Adopting a post-stack data
> solution before we decide we are in case three, or in case 2 and feel the
> tradeoff is right, seems premature.   It may well be that the ps draft is
> the right starting point once we have agreed on the problems to be solved.
> Which is why I am trying to understand the motivations for Rakesh' iOAM dex
> draft.  (I do think we need to support IOAM DEX.)
>
> Yours,
>
> Joel
>
> On 6/26/2024 3:30 PM, Loa Andersson wrote:
> > Jags, authors, chairs, working group,
> >
> >
> > I support making draft-jags-mpls-ps-mna-hdr a working group document.
> >
> > It has repeatedly been said by those who want ISD-solutions that
> > PSD-solutions ar not needed.
> >
> > I think this is a fundamentally flawed way of asking the question.
> >
> > - if we have a choice between two solutions and they are equally good
> >   for all cases, then it makes sense to try to find consensus for
> > adopting
> >   one of the solutions
> > - if we have a choice between two solutions there both solutions "can
> > do" all
> >   cases, but there one is significantly better for one set of cases
> > and the
> >   other is significantly better for the remaining cases, we should
> > cases we
> >    should seriously consider going for two solutions.
> > - if we we have the a choice between two solutions there one can solve
> > part of
> >   the cases and the other the remaining cases, the we need to go for two
> >   solutions.
> >
> > /Loa
> >
> >
> > Den 2024-06-26 kl. 04:50, skrev Jaganbabu Rajamanickam (jrajaman):
> >>
> >> Hello Chairs,
> >>
> >>    We would like to request WG adoption for draft-jags-mpls-ps-mna-hdr.
> >>
> >>    Updated the draft with the initial review comments and the latest
> >> MNA header format.
> >>
> >>   Welcome your review comments and suggestions.
> >>
> >> Thanx,
> >>
> >> Jags
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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]
>
>