From nobody Fri May 26 04:30:26 2023 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1088C15199B for ; Fri, 26 May 2023 04:30:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.086 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.086 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_REMOTE_IMAGE=0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=raszuk.net 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 tWIpZxLQZ445 for ; Fri, 26 May 2023 04:30:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wm1-x329.google.com (mail-wm1-x329.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::329]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D9B2C151B09 for ; Fri, 26 May 2023 04:30:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wm1-x329.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-3f603d4bc5bso7166755e9.3 for ; Fri, 26 May 2023 04:30:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=raszuk.net; s=google; t=1685100616; x=1687692616; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=jWPhGOR4JtC+Qlj9iotf+C3NFVfqf3jI4i/8F7HQo2k=; b=R7Qcfl+2u87ApBK5ustEvQCQsTyyUkvt+IL8u/j3oRTkpeVkAXdLVjdjko017WrXOW +wwBgEskJx1JBbNPZEBiszB0w4wkAxZFGgAgb8Z55v/U38oaCfrBlgJPBF7bdZXDeaPM bf22iXeWAckEQGlMyP3zNlPG2xQMNoFqaTs+XySVxGNDd6/HpBB0+nnvI34CRSBSUE2d iEIv+RuGNQ4m5DYVE8YG2DmXhMhxkQaBn4moZPlkTsPbBRa///bafiTrFUGwE+pYq7V/ ZB0OOvlFLq15Ni5UxcpXlGBmLE6XKLm/lwRleOlgSiMPI9W3SrsG83Ay9Sh2F1AOR79q 1o6Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1685100616; x=1687692616; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=jWPhGOR4JtC+Qlj9iotf+C3NFVfqf3jI4i/8F7HQo2k=; b=c4+Fwldgs06O53Xc85b0oArFiAcOPn5Rn+wL4UNxCXHZtPlNYYqXNydvCWsZK8KVKN JBVlaUhXJYY1kXyWGv3//kBh02AjGVPYKX7qEFiJZR4YGl5/WpxnVHDNogyrrFQ+eANK 4Wzq/VDm+UyFGgqqVYZu38uA/D1RnvclOAi0Ocziv7rfPt1Flqlsi5plJtbEMywCkK/U Msfi8ksvBXyKQenN5rZmGUzpN3uEhaiibHaePPnQMPyPQY1syxGsMIPop8MO5o0MXruh XLJPSYbJqEWBB+97IDYkfPj3IcCBmH9WsfU3oj3M+BJ+pSCjbgqriMLtNgNpdRFurhrM gJdw== X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDznDQHHaEx4XzNc1xb/HtPmyVv53jrN48QZNzVqP8q0Jf5fUR2x CShMNu6spLyPebnDwiO7FlagL2Um2cVfoug+sPDdp7DPdkW51utBAT4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ72NGo675mmwq+1Pgl1HfM6dhq4pYotu3WZeYgz9DMEzHML1ujJpTf0ReLH6lBIQN0zNsGF2iXvk8LDSJUKItA= X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:2111:b0:3f6:3bb:5132 with SMTP id u17-20020a05600c211100b003f603bb5132mr1099094wml.24.1685100616335; Fri, 26 May 2023 04:30:16 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <168424587271.45431.10014516596562429177@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: From: Robert Raszuk Date: Fri, 26 May 2023 13:30:05 +0200 Message-ID: To: spring@ietf.org Cc: draft-schmutzer-spring-cs-sr-policy@ietf.org, Gyan Mishra , spring-chairs@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a5d98905fc970fbb" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [spring] The SPRING WG has placed draft-schmutzer-spring-cs-sr-policy in state "Candidate for WG Adoption" X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39 Precedence: list List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG \(SPRING\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 May 2023 11:30:24 -0000 --000000000000a5d98905fc970fbb Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Gyan, If you say that this draft is: " to provide the same circuit switched 50ms optical bypass available on legacy OTN optical UPSR / BLSR rings" I have nothing to comment. - - - Dear WG, To summarize, I agree that the draft is well written and quite useful. But as I said earlier it should not be accepted under the current notion of providing circuit switching or as some even say "optical path over IP/MPLS transport". That notion is simply not technically correct. For one there is zero optical OAM discussed in the document. For second it does nothing to assure proper fabric operation from ingress to egress line cards on any network element. It does not discuss how to signal underlay drops and brownouts to end points. As said earlier it does nothing to prepare for unaccounted traffic presence at dedicated queues etc ... The list goes on and on ... If authors could rename this draft to say "PCE/SDN based QOS enhanced SR transit" and remove all references to circuit switching or SONET/SDH I would support it's adoption with both hands. But currently as we already have a real life example on this list it is going to be widely misinterpreted. Adding to this possible marketing spin the outcome could be pretty poor for the industry. Kind regards, Robert On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 1:25=E2=80=AFAM Gyan Mishra = wrote: > > Robert > > The optical control plane ASON/WSON/SSON for that would be the same GMPLS > control plane for IP/Optical used today for TDM CES (circuit emulation > services) over IP/MPLS, would now also used for Routed Optical SR-MPLS > networks. > > The control plane topic is orthogonal to the draft so don=E2=80=99t think= it=E2=80=99s > relevant, however maybe informative references could be added. > > Regards > > Gyan > > On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 5:51 PM Robert Raszuk wrote: > >> Gyan, >> >> While I do consider some use cases for what the draft is partially >> describing what you wrote as justification is really the crux of the mat= ter >> why IMO this work should not be adopted in SPRING nor any other IETF WG. >> >> Namely quote: >> >> "IP based optical networks" >> >> "IP over optical hop by hop routed optical transport" >> >> etc ... >> >> Please observe that this draft does not provide a control plane to >> optical transport stitching. Quite contrary it attempts to mimic >> characteristics of fixed channel transport to stuff it into an IP >> connection-less paradigm. >> >> Regards, >> R. >> >> On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 8:27=E2=80=AFPM Gyan Mishra >> wrote: >> >>> >>> I support adoption. >>> >>> The draft is well written. >>> >>> This is very important work for operators migrating from legacy TDM >>> optical to IP based optical networks using Segment Routing. >>> >>> The requirements is for IP over optical hop by hop routed optical >>> transport, either SR-MPLS or SRv6 uSID based networks to provide the = same >>> circuit switched 50ms optical bypass available on legacy OTN optical UP= SR / >>> BLSR rings, now on SR based IP / Optical networks having the same worki= ng >>> and protect make before break MOB scheme for 1:1 protection revertive o= r >>> non revertive with stateful PCE based hop by hop Co-routed disjoint sta= tic >>> SID list for protected path that has QOS LLQ style bandwidth guarantee= for >>> transport traffic prioritization over other IP traffic in a converged = core >>> scenario carrying both IP non transport traffic and IP based optical >>> transport based traffic. >>> >>> Thank you >>> >>> Gyan >>> >>> On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 10:04 AM IETF Secretariat < >>> ietf-secretariat-reply@ietf.org> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> The SPRING WG has placed draft-schmutzer-spring-cs-sr-policy in state >>>> Candidate for WG Adoption (entered by Joel Halpern) >>>> >>>> The document is available at >>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-schmutzer-spring-cs-sr-policy/ >>>> >>>> Comment: >>>> This starts a two week adoption call for the subject draft. Please >>>> speak up >>>> if you support or object to WG adoption. Two notes: 1) WG adoption is >>>> the >>>> start of the process. The basic question is whether you agree that th= e >>>> subject is worth the working group time to work on, and whether this >>>> represents a good starting point for the work. 2) Please include >>>> explanation >>>> for your view. Yes or no are not very helpful answers, as this is not >>>> a vote >>>> but an evaluation of support and concerns. Thank you, Joel (for the WG >>>> Chairs) >>>> >>>> We expect to close this call at the end of May, 2023. >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> spring mailing list >>>> spring@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring >>>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> >>> *Gyan Mishra* >>> >>> *Network Solutions A**rchitect * >>> >>> *Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com * >>> >>> >>> >>> *M 301 502-1347* >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> spring mailing list >>> spring@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring >>> >> -- > > > > *Gyan Mishra* > > *Network Solutions A**rchitect * > > *Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com * > > > > *M 301 502-1347* > > --000000000000a5d98905fc970fbb Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Gyan,

If you say that this draft is: &q= uot; =C2=A0to provide the same circuit switched 50ms optical bypass available on= legacy OTN optical UPSR / BLSR rings"=C2=A0 I have nothing to comment= .=C2=A0

- - -

Dear WG,

To summarize, I agree that the draft is well written= and quite useful. But as I said earlier it should not be accepted under th= e current notion of providing=C2=A0circuit switching or as some even say &q= uot;optical path over IP/MPLS transport".=C2=A0

That notion=C2=A0is simply not=C2=A0technically=C2=A0correct. For one th= ere is zero optical OAM discussed in the document. For second it does nothi= ng to assure proper fabric operation from ingress to egress line cards on a= ny network element. It does not discuss how to signal underlay drops and br= ownouts to end points. As said earlier it does nothing to prepare for unacc= ounted traffic presence at dedicated queues etc ... The list goes on and on= ...=C2=A0

If authors could rename this draft to s= ay "PCE/SDN based QOS enhanced SR transit" and remove all referen= ces to circuit=C2=A0switching or SONET/SDH I would support it's adoptio= n with both=C2=A0hands. But currently as we already have a real life exampl= e on this list it is going to be widely misinterpreted. Adding to this poss= ible marketing spin the outcome could be pretty poor for the industry.=C2= =A0

Kind regards,
Robert

<= /div>

On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 1:25=E2=80=AFAM Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> wrote:

Robert

The optical= control plane ASON/WSON/SSON for that would be the same GMPLS control plan= e for IP/Optical =C2=A0used today for TDM CES (circuit emulation services) = over IP/MPLS, would now also used for Routed Optical SR-MPLS networks.=C2= =A0

The control plane to= pic is orthogonal to the draft so don=E2=80=99t think it=E2=80=99s relevant= , however maybe informative references could be added.

Regards=C2=A0

Gyan

On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 5:51 PM Robert Raszuk= <robert@raszuk.n= et> wrote:
Gyan,

While I do consider some use ca= ses for what the draft is partially describing what you wrote as justificat= ion is really the crux of the matter why IMO this work should not be adopte= d in SPRING nor any other IETF WG.=C2=A0

Namely qu= ote:=C2=A0

"IP based optical networks"

"IP over optical hop by hop routed optical= =C2=A0transport"

etc ...=C2=A0

Please observe that this draft does not provide a control p= lane to optical transport stitching. Quite contrary it attempts to mimic ch= aracteristics of fixed channel transport to stuff it into an IP connection-= less paradigm.=C2=A0

Regards,
R.

On= Thu, May 25, 2023 at 8:27=E2=80=AFPM Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> wrote:<= br>

<= div dir=3D"auto">I support adoption.

The draft is well written.

This is very important work for operators migrating from le= gacy TDM optical to IP based optical networks using Segment Routing.
<= div dir=3D"auto">
The requirements is for IP ove= r optical hop by hop routed optical =C2=A0transport, either =C2=A0SR-MPLS o= r SRv6 uSID based networks to provide the same circuit switched 50ms optica= l bypass available on legacy OTN optical UPSR / BLSR rings, now on SR based= IP / Optical networks having the same working and protect make before brea= k MOB scheme for 1:1 protection revertive or non revertive with stateful PC= E based hop by hop Co-routed disjoint static SID list for protected path th= at has QOS LLQ style =C2=A0bandwidth guarantee for =C2=A0transport traffic = prioritization over other IP traffic in a converged core scenario carrying = both IP non transport traffic and IP based optical transport based traffic.=

Thank you=C2=A0

Gyan

On Tue, May 16, 2023= at 10:04 AM IETF Secretariat <ietf-secretariat-reply@ietf.org> wrote:<= br>

The SPRING WG has placed draft-schmutzer-spring-cs-sr-policy in state
Candidate for WG Adoption (entered by Joel Halpern)

The document is available at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/do= c/draft-schmutzer-spring-cs-sr-policy/

Comment:
This starts a two week adoption call for the subject draft.=C2=A0 Please sp= eak up
if you support or object to WG adoption.=C2=A0 Two notes: 1) WG adoption is= the
start of the process.=C2=A0 The basic question is whether you agree that th= e
subject is worth the working group time to work on, and whether this
represents a good starting point for the work. 2) Please include explanatio= n
for your view.=C2=A0 Yes or no are not very helpful answers, as this is not= a vote
but an evaluation of support and concerns. Thank you, Joel (for the WG Chai= rs)

We expect to close this call at the end of May, 2023.

_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
-- <= br>


Gyan Mis= hra

Network Solutions Architect=C2=A0

Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com

M 301 502-1347

<= /div>

_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
-- <= br>


Gyan Mishra

= Network Solutions Architect=C2=A0

Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com

= M 301 502-1347


--000000000000a5d98905fc970fbb--