IETF Logo Mail Archive

[mpls] Re: Working Group Adoption Poll on draft-mb-mpls-ioam-dex

Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Fri, 25 October 2024 12:34 UTC

Return-Path: <loa@pi.nu>
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 1FA62C151535 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Oct 2024 05:34:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.908
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.908 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1xlFmYZq55Qt for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Oct 2024 05:34:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from srv.pi.nu (srv.pi.nu [IPv6:2a00:1a28:1410:5::1348]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A79FEC151087 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Oct 2024 05:34:11 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <5d0e02de-cb9d-47d8-b088-af923650a584@pi.nu>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2024 14:34:09 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, Fabian Ihle <fabian.ihle@uni-tuebingen.de>
References: <BEZP281MB2008D5D3609840A7A3C5E26E987D2@BEZP281MB2008.DEUP281.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <408a6ad5-2fe0-4a53-8764-87b3949302b0@uni-tuebingen.de> <EDA63038-9312-4634-BC70-F73C914C354B@gmail.com>
Content-Language: sv, en-GB
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
In-Reply-To: <EDA63038-9312-4634-BC70-F73C914C354B@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID-Hash: 6IYOJXSSV4P3DCHVUHMCFXRTK673PZ4G
X-Message-ID-Hash: 6IYOJXSSV4P3DCHVUHMCFXRTK673PZ4G
X-MailFrom: loa@pi.nu
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-mpls.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: mpls <mpls@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [mpls] Re: Working Group Adoption Poll on draft-mb-mpls-ioam-dex
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/pY2dHfTH-casq2I4w1a8qsGhW3w>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mpls>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:mpls-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:mpls-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:mpls-leave@ietf.org>

Stewart and Fabian,

I think all implementation experiences are useful, also if the they are 
done using the commercially non-deployed P4, you can always draw some 
conclusions.

What I would like is why PSD is trickier, and if "a bit trickier" is 
significant enough to not go with PSD. Especially since we agree that 
draft-mb-mpls-ioam-dex is not compliant with RFC 9326.

Is "a bit trickier" the prize we pay for compliance with RFC 9326?

/Loa

Den 25/10/2024 kl. 13:13, skrev Stewart Bryant:
> 
> 
>> On 14 Oct 2024, at 10:34, Fabian Ihle <fabian.ihle@uni-tuebingen.de> 
>> wrote:
>>
>> I think that ISD is the way to go for the DEX option as an PSD 
>> implementation has proven to be a bit trickier in our P4 version.
> 
> Is this an issue with the protocol or an indication of deficiencies in P4?
> 
> Is P4 deployed or likely to be deployed in a production environment, 
> i.e. is this a consideration for protocol standardisation?
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Stewart
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list -- mpls@ietf.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to mpls-leave@ietf.org

-- 
Loa Andersson
Senior MPLS Expert
Bronze Dragon Consulting
loa@pi.nu
loa.pi.nu.@gmail.com

v2.29.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status