[mpls] Re: Poll: IOAM and PSD

[Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>]

Haoyu,

It is not the BoS bit only. Since uses type D LSEs, the zero bit is 
already in use. Set to "1" to avoid confusion with Special Purpose 
Labels, so only 22 bits for flags.

Another thing is that RFC RFC 9326 specifies 8 extension flags, while 
draft-mb-mpls-ioam-dex only have 6 flags. Ity should be noted that 
draft-gandhi-mpls-mna-ioam-dex nicely aligns with RFC 9326. Which would 
place it higher in priority of "to be implemented" secifications than 
draft-mb-mpls-ioam-dex.
/Loa
Den 12/08/2024 kl. 09:39, skrev Haoyu Song:
> Yes. The BOS bit in the label field changes a lot of things.
>
> Haoyu
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2024 8:26 PM
> To: Haoyu Song <[e-mail]>; Tony Li <[e-mail]>; mpls <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [mpls] Re: Poll: IOAM and PSD
>
> Haoyu,
>
> do you mean that since specification of IOAM-DEX (RFC 9326) following
> RFC9197 specifies
>
> - IOAM-Trace-Types of 24 bit flag fields And Optional Fields - Flow ID
> 32 bits - Sequence Number 32 bits And draft-mb-mpls-ioam-dex specifies - IOAM Trace Types of 22 flag bits And optional fields - Flow ID 30 bits - sequence number 11 bits (variable) That draft-mb-mpls-ioam-dex is strictly not compatible with RFC 9326? /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]
>

-- 
Loa Andersson
Senior MPLS Expert
Bronze Dragon Consulting
[e-mail]
[e-mail]