Re: [mpls] Poll 1: ISD and PSD in the MNA Framework

All

I agree that the Framework draft should be solution independent and say
that a packet carrying ancillary data can use one or both PSD or ISD.

I agree it’s up to the solutions document specifying the network action to
specify which method to be used and for which ancillary data, OAM etc.

I agree that a network action may not require the inclusion of ancillary
data.

I support using a new SPL to carry NAI and am not in favor of repurpose of
ELI to carry NAI.  Issues I feel are related  to breaking ECMP.

Thank you

Gyan

On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 5:20 PM Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> wrote:

> MPLS working group and and the Open MPLS DT,
>
> The working group chairs believe the current situation is:
>
> The Framework document must be solution independent and say:
>
> a packet may carry Ancillary Data using one or both of the following
> methods:
>
>     (1) in-stack, and
>
>     (2) post-stack.
>
> It is up to the document specifying the Network Action to specify which
> method is to be used for which Ancillary Data.
>
> Note, a Network Action may not require inclusion of Ancillary Data.
>
> Is this the consensus of the working group? Please respond to the MPLS
> WG mail list.
>
>
> Loa Andersson
> for the Open DT wg chairs
>
> --
> Loa Andersson                        email: loa@pi.nu
> Senior MPLS Expert                          loa.pi.nu@gmail.com
> Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: +46 739 81 21 64
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>
-- 

<http://www.verizon.com/>

*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *

*Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com <gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com>*

*M 301 502-1347*