[mpls] Re: Poll: IOAM and PSD

[Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>]

I presume I am misunderstanding your reply Haoyu?  For every technology 
the IETF has ever agreed on, when we agreed on it, we knew there were 
future possibilities whose solutiosn would be affected by the choices we 
made.  But, lacking knowledge of what problems we would find in 3, 5, or 
10 years, we made the choices based on the information we had.  That 
does include making sensible provisions for future expansions.  But it 
also includes excluding some paths so that we can build effective 
technology.

Yours,

Joel

On 8/11/2024 9:40 PM, Haoyu Song wrote:
> Hi Loa,
>
> Currently I'm not sure but just sense the needs for the future expansion.
>
> Thanks,
> Haoyu
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2024 7:38 PM
> To: Haoyu Song <[e-mail]>; Tony Li <[e-mail]>; mpls <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [mpls] Re: Poll: IOAM and PSD
>
> Haoyu,
>
> While your response to the question and the first part of the second question is clear, I'm not clear what you mean by the second part of the response 2nd question.
>
>      I’d like also see the support of application level ID and metadata to
>      better support the application-aware networking.
>
> Do you care to expand om this, are you referring to draft-song-apn-dns-application-aware-networking? Which IDs do you think need to support application-aware networking?
>
> /Loa
>
>
> Den 09/08/2024 kl. 07:35, skrev Haoyu Song:
>> Hi Tony,
>>
>> My response is inline.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Haoyu
>>
>> *From:* Tony Li <[e-mail]> *On Behalf Of *Tony Li
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 30, 2024 8:26 AM
>> *To:* mpls <[e-mail]>
>> *Subject:* [mpls] Poll: IOAM and PSD
>>
>> [WG chair hat: on]
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> We’ve had many discussions about IOAM and PSD over the last few years.
>> We need to reach consensus on the problems that need to be addressed
>> in these areas. Therefore, we would like to hear from everyone,
>> especially independent operators:
>>
>>   1. There are many flavors of IOAM.  Which ones would you like to
>>      deploy/implement with MNA?
>>
>> [HS] I’d like MNA to support IOAM DEX and Trace option as specified in
>> RFC9326 and RFC9197 using PSD. The reasons are:
>>
>>       1. Comply with existing standards, can be directly used without
>>          any hassle
>>       2. Support potential cross-domain interoperation (e.g., cross the
>>          boundary of MPLS domain and non-MPLS domain)
>>       3. IOAM trace (i.e., the passport mode) is very useful in many
>>          realtime measurement/congestion control applications (e.g.,
>>          HPCC and tons of published research papers), therefore it has
>>          great potential for future wider application.
>>
>>   2. Do you have other applications of MNA that have not been proposed yet?
>>
>> [HS] I’d like to see a simple flag-based action to support the
>> postcard mode telemetry.
>>
>> I’d like also see the support of application level ID and metadata to
>> better support the application-aware networking.
>>
>>   This poll will close in two weeks, at 9am PDT, Aug 13.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> MPLS chairs
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> mpls mailing list -- [e-mail]
>> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> --
> Loa Andersson
> Senior MPLS Expert
> Bronze Dragon Consulting
> [e-mail]
> [e-mail]
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]