Re: [mpls] 2nd Working Group Last call on draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements

[Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]>]

You can of course to NFRR with a single label, possibly with a non-special purpose label. Where it becomes particularly interesting is if you use the NMA to specify the place and nature of the failure because that gives the opportunity to repair in the face of multiple failures.

Stewart

> On 2 Apr 2024, at 4:24 pm, Igor Malyushkin <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Tianran,
> 
> I'm obviously not Andrew, but as an operator, we are particularly
> interested in the NFRR case described
> in draft-ietf-mpls-mna-usecases (section 2.1).
> We are not going to deploy SRv6 in the near future, and we extensively use
> MPLS (not SR-like), NFRR will give us the ability to prevent temporal
> looping in case of node failures with egress protection technologies.
> 
> 
> вт, 2 апр. 2024 г. в 22:02, Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran=
> [e-mail]>:
> 
>> Hi Andrew,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> No, I did not ask who will not deploy NMA. I care about who will deploy
>> NMA, and what’s the use case.
>> 
>> I did not say IETF can only work on one solution. But I want to understand
>> the value of the solution.
>> 
>> The fact is I do not see any real user nor operator sharing the
>> requirement and use case.
>> 
>> Now I know you claim the need of MNA as an operator, which is perfect.
>> 
>> I appreciate your input to the requirement and use case. How will you use
>> MNA?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Tianran
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> *发件人:* Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston=[e-mail]>
>> *发送时间:* 2024年4月2日 21:05
>> *收件人:* Tianran Zhou <[e-mail]>; Tony Li <[e-mail]>;
>> Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>
>> *抄送:* mpls <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
>> Zhukeyi(Kaiyin,Datacom Standard&Patent) <[e-mail]>
>> *主题:* Re: [mpls] 2nd Working Group Last call on
>> draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Hi Tianran,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I find this email to be a little… confusing.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Firstly it is very well documented that there are multiple operators that
>> do not want – and will not deploy – srv6 (particularly with its divergence
>> from Ipv6 standards and potential security flaws.). These operators are
>> free to make a choice in technologies – and the IETF does not prohibit the
>> creation of multiple solutions to the same problem.  Indeed RFC7221 deals
>> with competing design goals by citing
>> http://dl.acm.org/ft_gateway.cfm?id=966726 – specifically it states
>> “Helicopters are great, and so are submarines.  The problem is that if you
>> try to build one vehicle to perform two fundamentally different jobs,
>> you’re going to get a vehcile that does neither job well.”
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> You therefore need to acknowledge that operators may have different use
>> cases and different environments, and may choose to decide to use one
>> technology over another.  Yes, there are times when we want a single
>> solution, but at the end of the day, the operators, who are your employers
>> customers, should be the ultimate determinants of what they choose to run,
>> and there is no requirement in any IETF process to state that there can
>> only be a single solution to a problem.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Secondly, you refer to reinventing the wheel – it can be strongly argued
>> that parts of SRv6 did indeed reinvent the sr-mpls wheel, while reinventing
>> various other competing technologies.  By way of example, it is entirely
>> possible to create L3VPN’s – and has been for years – without the use of
>> SRv6.  So in this sense, you are correct that we sometimes reinvent the
>> wheel – for various reasons and various purposes – and to meet operator
>> requirements.  This is exactly what happened in the case of SRv6, and it is
>> part and parcel of what the ietf does, to create solutions that cater to
>> the needs of the internet in general, not a single vendor, not a single
>> operator.  SRv6 does NOT meet the requirements of all operators, and to
>> insist that it does is to disregard potential customers.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> You are also correct in stating that many people do not care about MNA –
>> because they are quite happy with what they are running and are happy to
>> continue using their currect technologies.  However, the statement seems
>> predicated on the fact that everyone cares about SRv6 – let me 100% assure
>> you that is not the case.  Indeed – if you watch the MSR6 BOF (which should
>> be available on youtube), a particular individual from a large operator
>> directly stated (slightly paraphrased) “This presentation is predicated on
>> the fact that we all care about SRv6 – I am here to tell you we don’t” So
>> while your statement is accurate – it is not in any way an argument against
>> the adoption of MNA.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I would STRONGLY suggest you read RFC7282 as well – which heavy refers to
>> technical objections and even deals with a situation where one thing is
>> considered a more elegant and clean solution, yet consensus is still found
>> (Please see section 3 of the aforementioned RFC)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> In this particular case, on the specific grounds that there are operators
>> who wish to have extended network functionality – but are not comfortable
>> with SRv6 and do not believe in its security compromises – I fully support
>> the advancement of MNA.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I am curious however if you have any substantive technical issues with the
>> document – that go beyond “There is something else to do this” (which as
>> stated – some operators do not agree with and do not want – and will never
>> run until outstanding issues have been resolved)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Andrew
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Internal All Employees
>> 
>> *From: *mpls <[e-mail]> on behalf of Tianran Zhou <
>> zhoutianran=[e-mail]>
>> *Date: *Saturday, 30 March 2024 at 03:29
>> *To: *Tony Li <[e-mail]>, Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>
>> *Cc: *mpls <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <
>> [e-mail]>, Zhukeyi(Kaiyin,Datacom
>> Standard&Patent) <[e-mail]>
>> *Subject: *Re: [mpls] 2nd Working Group Last call on
>> draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements
>> 
>> Hi Adrian,
>> 
>> IMO, this document still cannot address the question why the industry or
>> operators need the MNA, given there is already SRv6.
>> From the very beginning, we just reinvent a wheel.
>> There is no surprise many people do not care about MNA.
>> I do not support.
>> 
>> Tianran
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: mpls [mailto:[e-mail] <[e-mail]>] On
>> Behalf Of Tony Li
>> Sent: Friday, March 29, 2024 11:35 PM
>> To: Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>
>> Cc: mpls <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [mpls] 2nd Working Group Last call on
>> draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements
>> 
>> 
>> [WG chair hat: off]
>> 
>> Looks good, ship it, modulo Greg’s comments.
>> 
>> T
>> 
>> 
>>>> On Mar 21, 2024, at 8:21 AM, Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi all,
>>> 
>>> I know it is IETF week and you all have other things to do (nice
>>> meals, sight-seeing, combatting jet-lag), but I just wanted to remind
>>> you to look at this document and make your comments about the last call