Re: [mpls] Concerns about ISD

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tianran,

I do not think DETNET(including bounded delay) need neither. There is
> already specifications for MPLS.
>
> We are not going to review them all here.
>

That is a very interesting and important point. I just looked at RFC8964
and surprise ... no need to change MPLS architecture. Just use a service
label concept and carry service info outside of the data plane.

What I called Forwarding Behaviour ID they call service label (analogy to
other types of service labels already carried in MPLS). The
difference between RFC8964 and FBI approach seems to be about types of
services (aka actions) to execute on the packets. Also FBI concept works
with domain wide labels while service labels are pretty much local to a
given node.

So a bit curious what the above architectures are missing which would
really justify to define, develop and deploy a new MPLS data plane ?

Kind regards,
Robert

PS. For those who are claiming that use a post stack data PSD should be the
only option let me observe that if this solution is supposed to work with
SR-MPLS the label stack of pure transport may be pretty large. So number of
nodes may not be capable to fetch PSD (we invented EL just because transit
LSRs were not even able to read IP header). That to me is a practical
blocker for this approach if MNA will continue.