Re: [spring] Different MSDs for different traffic types on the same headend.
Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> Wed, 18 December 2019 06:28 UTC
Return-Path: <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
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 190241208B3 for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 22:28:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UpwKbIpqMldU for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 22:28:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-il1-x135.google.com (mail-il1-x135.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::135]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D00201200C7 for <spring@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 22:28:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-il1-x135.google.com with SMTP id v69so715312ili.10 for <spring@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 22:28:04 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=pe64ShISQo1neohJ5/NdQ6qYw6vBltjhQRWX7KP2o7Y=; b=Ls1M5hNVkIFQy9kj0gztNqpoRvVMi/nOfK9miqTa87Y826Ns19iWnRMn0z+3GztJ1f um/ivaF+8KOo1dGkykSHUTNpunNMLfZ7bvSZXXgAygynEK9TaOjIGnu8p4bAdP/j1dtl vKFsZ6NbaojdoFxuLxNwHMfD/uXmCY5/deiF5PjeZK0M74e4Uhqw5g95pxA0ZyhE83y6 6UvVcJJH4hnWqeLSS2ykXpqNNqr8W9oCwNS+kMjf/heThQ00o6zZaadgWiUbEjGiGDGF uYRSm/ub0L2Z6048oyoazkxa9NR6M+0WwLmhtHd6jp/adGKQiF8pUQ5tYdIMiY2dnTyH ++fg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=pe64ShISQo1neohJ5/NdQ6qYw6vBltjhQRWX7KP2o7Y=; b=t7eVyVLOELbmN1MUYAVuVJRBuu6BeKzxwuOJwECDXUR0aQOL9kB+t5vWptvuQt0XU8 WtJX3UQuNDwSwJ45SIVLf5w4nBBdCamfIY5fOoSHpzHMZSW3ApByf63OiSpJQCS8VGy7 LGEXjulIdACdRKa7WubvPziLeFlYt+jRqWpfaMknlKQqs2ptyCI8uim4+Kw+SvqZw3uG 5t42tBZtTWQRwVs8R1C6je/G6Aik6uJ7Pbc4WmULb4ixs7XuJK5JMz2Izh2paWnJ0FXs ouDLdAtBIeGIpCmdFzVgxrPYokksi+7UbLNYQl0EWuKDpqU4JtumYRXDxgXa970WhgXu l3ew==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV+9r6g5Pbo0Pexx1e1QDXz9mbxH1Rr3Nx+olX5k/KGiD2/ZduG lFoY1qhNYeIdI0AlsLMrUjmvySmuoYmKM27B5L4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqznCSxG/K2zn4dEdoEGK66m4TwISMOgDmybDJ5W/Bfzihcmpn9tmlZZoI4fUqd58K6EvsWf68XZ0wsHFEkadgc=
X-Received: by 2002:a92:4095:: with SMTP id d21mr422018ill.158.1576650483760; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 22:28:03 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAN3QBScGjeL=yDSW3AOXZrVTGA-czbY2qDrOMQ=gDxAd4d=nYQ@mail.gmail.com> <38b14bf5-b6d9-4d46-ad1d-d26d3376df51@Spark> <CAN3QBSf2Kpu3Pd_FYmA7BCHJ=uWu9DnEEaYdQwGDDs26NmbJQg@mail.gmail.com> <CABNhwV1-yRcK18JsJbAr3e+Hm-35WdmUFZ0mkzwLj5iBD9zWxw@mail.gmail.com> <c8967bfb-5a8e-447d-8e28-314820764f13@Spark> <CAN3QBScyJ5QgmKU8_h62pLF=FQ8y40C3sSRB1TWfKBQfdb1Mkw@mail.gmail.com> <CAN3QBSdFVCBQVPVc2Ax0i2EgMrGqzSCj7YpsUUE2m3HiM9AcyA@mail.gmail.com> <CAOj+MMFZnhYgOShZDFuBAwvhaUPGppo+JTF1k_1+MWKh08NGQg@mail.gmail.com> <CAN3QBSf8e7H7337_E9odFRbz--whH4w+D0NVozsefVSsD75nNg@mail.gmail.com> <MWHPR11MB1600FC5024F4CB780597079CC1500@MWHPR11MB1600.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CABNhwV2WHuGMmw-DcxWoELtt6LLp7HRyisBLr7vjN6e0tPYh=g@mail.gmail.com> <45229771-83a4-418c-89f8-f8217c72cda0@Spark>
In-Reply-To: <45229771-83a4-418c-89f8-f8217c72cda0@Spark>
From: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 01:27:38 -0500
Message-ID: <CABNhwV2rpGcbqeCtUM+ht6ZqcCNEh8k9SEhWe-E41qVBiD8yMg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" <ketant@cisco.com>, Nat Kao <lekao@pyxisworks.org>, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>, SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000502e60599f48c47"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/FVrMgbBSohKiXK8WA3IRZAwbR8I>
Subject: Re: [spring] Different MSDs for different traffic types on the same headend.
X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG \(SPRING\)" <spring.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spring/>
List-Post: <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 06:28:08 -0000
Thanks Jeff!! Kind regards I have a personal Cisco VIRL server server which I just finished building out the SP topology with two SP SR domains. Cisco XRv supports SRv6 in 6.6.1 so I have loaded the latest image 7.0.1 so hopefully have all features. Plan to get it all up and running tomorrow. Question- Since SR-MPLS uses an IPv4 data plane and since SRv6 uses IPv6 data plane is it possible to run SRv6 as an overlay both SR-MPLS and SRv6 together as two ships in the night. Would save on having to go back and forth between simulations if they can both live together so I can test both simultaneously. In-line questions follow up On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 8:41 PM Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: > Gyan, > > I wrote this presentation ~3 years ago, so the numbers are not necessarily > current. > > Please see inline, hope this helps you to better understand the technology > behind the terminology. > Let me know if anything is unclear. > > Cheers, > Jeff > On Dec 17, 2019, 3:45 PM -0800, Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>, > wrote: > > > Hi Ketan > > Is this the artificial boundary below for SR-TE from the document provided > by Jeff. > > MSD supported by different HW/SW differs widely : > – Linux (kernel 4.10): 2 SID’s, some improvements recently (as of 4.11) – > Low end off the shelf (merchant) silicon, e.g. BCM Trident2: 3-5 SID’s – > High end off the shelf (merchant) silicon, e.g BCM Jericho1 : 4-7 SID’s – > Vendor’ silicon, e.g. Juniper’ Trio, Nokia’ FP3: 4-10+ SID’s > > So if you are doing MPLS-TE w/o SR-TE policies reusing they MPLS data > plane the label stack is identical to MPLS just with different label range > for SRGB 16000-23999 for absolute or indexed label. > > [jeff]SRGB is either configurable or a static label range, it doesn’t have > to be identical with SR domain, indexing provides the abstraction (and > there’s life outside of Cisco ;-)) > > Label stack for SR-MPLS is identical to MPLS with single topmost label for > label switching through the core and bottom of stack services label for L3 > vpn services. > > [jeff] NH in the VPN route is recursively resolved to a LSP (or policy in > modern lingo) that could have 1 or more SID’s associated with it (). In > MPLS case, without TE, would be the label/N-SID of the egress PE, the SID > stack would grow any time you need to use Adj-SID’s to deviate from SPT. > Specifically to SR, egress PE can also associate a particular path (color) > with the route and signal to the ingress PE what path to take in order to > reach it (NH). > [gyan] So if you are running just SR-MPLS using SPF path and don’t deviate from that then with prefix/node SID which I believe is like the egress PE ibgp NH loopback FEC destination, that you have a SID label binding for your LSP to build topmost reusing the MPLS data plane. In the case described there would be only 1 transport label. Correct? You would only have an Adj-SID if you are doing SR-TE. Correct? In that case if you had one Adj-SID in the middle of the path like a loose explicit route object ERO, then would still be only 1 transport label in the stack as if you were not doing SR-TE. Or would it be 2 labels, not sure. So let’s say If your SR-TE path deviated from the spf along 10 hops, so then you would have 10 Adj-SIDs and so 10 labels in the stack. So this is where MSD and BGP-LS IGP extensions come into play to signal back to the head end that the maximum SID depth has exceeded resulting in an error. At that point the SR-TE LSP would be broken and you would have to manually build policy with less strict hops. I guess If you were using PCEP centralized controller that would signal MSD exceeded but I think you would still be in a broken LSP state. The pcep controller would have to be sitting next to the head end for the SR-TE policy for the LSP to fix automatically. Is that correct? So for SR-TE due to the MSD issues and SID depth asic limitations even with the latest asic, you really have to deploy a pcep controller based architecture near the head end with SR-MPLS if using SR-TE. If you are not using SR-TE then I believe there is really no benefit of going to SR-MPLS. You agree. I guess you save on having to maintain ldp state on each node. Thats not a big deal or business justification to switch to SR-MPLS as for operators “MPLS” is their bread & butter they are use to so why change. I think the big benefit for both SR-MPLS and SRv6 is individual coloring of vpn flows. Cisco calls it per-VRF TE, but it’s ugly to configure and manage. So SR-MPLS and SRv6 is the future solution for operators that need the per vpn coloring. Given the issues with SR-TE with SID depth asic limitations is it possible to use traditional RSVP TE. I am going to try in my virl setup as that could be a good workaround for SR-TE hardware limitations until the hardware is up to snuff to handle very long explicit paths. I believe their is a draft with teas in the works for IP TE to use rsvp bandwidth signaling path and reserve messages with both SR-MPLS and SRv6. > For clarity on nomenclature below please comment: > > Transport label - This is the SID label stack insertion at the ingress PE > head end to the SR-MPLS domain performing SR-TE. Each hop along the way > hop the top SID label is popped until SL==0 at which time PHP default or > UHP explicit null “pipe mode” is performed. (Similar to topmost in MPLS > label switch world but now its a stack of labels instead of a single > label) > > [jeff] There’s no SL field in MPLS header, there’s however BoS bit that > should be set on the most bottom label (in this case - VPN label), PHP is > explicitly signaled by the egress PE (P/NP-flag in Prefix-SID) > > > Once you get past the transport label now you are on common ground with > M-BGP overlay services > > Services label- L3 vpn service SID signaled. > So with the service label that is signaled from ingress to egress PE for > service. Is this a single label like traditional L3 vpn aggregate label or > more then one or many labels. > > [jeff] there’s no differences with any other VPNoverFoo, service labels > are signaled in exactly same way independently of the transport and are > locally significant (that’s why LxVPN’s are such a great technology) > > > The services label my guess should be fixed and not have any vendor > specific boundary constraints. > > [jeff] they are locally significant, in any implementation - label blocks > are associated with particular functions and programmed in HW, so the > service label would come out of the service range, which is significant to > the device advertising it. > In modern OS’s the ranges are configurable, in older ones, it is static > and there’s usually a header file that looks like: > #define MPLS_L3VPN_MIN_LABEL 0x40000 > #define MPLS_L3VPN_MAX_LABEL 0x85FFF > > > Gyan > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 7:21 AM Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) < > ketant@cisco.com> wrote: > >> Hi Nat, >> >> >> >> The MSD framework enables us to define more/new MSD types. If there is a >> real use-case and requirement (as you express) and the necessary MSD >> type(s) can be formally defined then perhaps the WG can evaluate it. >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Ketan >> >> >> >> *From:* spring <spring-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of* Nat Kao >> *Sent:* 17 December 2019 17:16 >> *To:* Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> >> *Cc:* SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>; Nat Kao <lekao@pyxisworks.org> >> *Subject:* Re: [spring] Different MSDs for different traffic types on >> the same headend. >> >> >> >> Hello, Robert. >> >> Surely the current BMI-MSD definition is sufficient for platforms without >> artificial boundaries. >> >> In this ideal case, maximum labels available for SR-TE policy can be >> inferred from BMI-MSD and VPN routes. >> >> >> However we have 3 different artificial boundaries across 3 different >> platforms now. >> >> Hardcoding these boundaries might not scale well. (Especially different >> OS versions may behave differently.) >> >> A standard mechanism to discover this boundary would greatly help >> constructing SR-TE policy candidate paths. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Nat. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 5:58 PM Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> wrote: >> >> Hi Nat, >> >> >> >> I am having a bit of difficulty understanding reasoning and the way you >> are separating transport from service labels. >> >> >> >> The processing label limit usually comes from data plane capabilities of >> the platform namely LFIB or hardware below. >> >> >> >> Such layer is function agnostic and it does not matter what role the >> label serves. >> >> >> >> Label lookup results in pointer to a adj. rewrite on the outbound side. >> It really does not matter if the adjacent peer is your P router, segment >> endpoint or CE. >> >> >> >> Of course there are number of processing exceptions - for example concept >> of aggregate VPN label, additional header modifications etc ... >> >> >> >> Likely some platforms put such artificial boundary between transport and >> service hence your request. But if so IMHO this is more of an issue with >> specific platform or its marketing message then IETF :). >> >> >> >> Many thx, >> R. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 6:06 AM Nat Kao <lekao@pyxisworks.org> wrote: >> >> Hi, Jeff. >> >> Consider a headend that can perform 1 of the following 2 modes(but not >> both): >> >> 1) Plain IPv4: 6 transport labels + 0 service label => traffic can be >> steered into a 6-label SR-TE policy. >> >> 2) Any type of VPN: 3 transport labels + 1~3 service labels => traffic >> cannot be steered into a 6-label SR-TE policy. >> >> a) As defined in RFC8491, the BMI-MSD is 6 for this headend. Do we have a >> standardized way to signal the transport label depth in mode 2? >> >> Maybe in a different MSD type? >> >> b) Since plain IPv4 and VPN routes can be steered into the same SR-TE >> policy, do we have a standardized headend behavior in this situation? >> >> (Should I open a new thread to discuss this? It seems not quite >> MSD-relative.) >> >> >> >> Thanks... >> >> Nat >> >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 7:19 AM Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> Gyan, >> >> >> >> MSD is only relevant for a device that either imposes the label stack >> (head-end) or manipulates it (BSID anchor). There are some other constrains >> when it comes to entropy labels and ERLD, please read the respective drafts. >> >> In general, SID stack would grow when TE is in use (any time you need to >> use additional SID to deviate from SPT), another case is when additional >> SID’s are used for services on the nodes, other than the tail-end. >> >> That’s why we've designed MSD to be very flexible to accommodate all the >> different use cases, it is upto computational logic to decide how to deal >> with different constrains (MSD types) >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> Jeff >> >> >> >> P.S. you might want to see the NANOG MSD presentation I did some time ago. >> >> >> https://pc.nanog.org/static/published/meetings/NANOG71/1424/20171004_Tantsura_The_Critical_Role_v1.pdf >> >> On Dec 14, 2019, 11:59 PM -0800, Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>, >> wrote: >> >> Jeff >> >> >> >> With SR-MPLS with SR-TR let’s say if you use cSPF snd don’t have an ERO >> strict explicit path defined or is a loose path, then the for the cSPF >> would the transport labels be 1. For loose would also be 1 also. If the >> path were explicit defined to egress PE and was 7 hops from ingress to >> egress then transport would be 6. And if L3 vpn service sid was signaled >> that would be 1 vpn label. >> >> >> >> Let me know if I have that right. >> >> >> >> In Nats scenario for IPv6 he has 3 vpnv6 labels. >> >> >> >> Why is that? >> >> >> >> With both SR-MPLS and SRv6 the L3 vpn AFI/SAFI MBGP services overlay >> single label sits on top off SR as if does today with MPLS so why 3 vpn >> labels. >> >> >> >> So with this draft with BGP-LS and BMI-MSD you can flood into the IGP the >> SID depth so all the nodes along the SR-TE path don’t go over the maximum >> which would result in an error. >> >> >> >> If you set your MTU high enough in the core like 9216, does that overcome >> the SID depth issues with SR-TE? >> >> >> >> Warm regards, >> >> >> >> Gyan >> >> >> >> On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 2:43 AM Nat Kao <lekao@pyxisworks.org> wrote: >> >> Hi, Jeff. >> >> >> >> Thanks for the BMI-MSD reference. If I understand correctly: >> >> >> >> BMI-MSD = Transport Label Depth + Service Label Depth >> >> Only former can be utilized by SR-TE policies. >> >> >> >> Currently do we have any method to determine the composition of BMI? >> >> We need to know the transport label depth when doing service route >> per-destination steering. >> >> >> >> This problem arises when trying to steer a plain IPv4 route and a VPN >> service route into the same SR-TE policy that exceeds the transport label >> depth of the service route. I'm trying to figure out the standard behavior >> in this case since the headend we use currently produces some interesting >> results. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Nat. >> >> >> >> On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 2:42 AM Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com >> <jefftant..ietf@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> Hi Nat, >> >> >> >> Please read https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8491#section-5 >> >> Currently defined MSD types are: >> >> 1: BMI >> >> 2: ERLD >> >> >> >> Specifically to BMI: >> >> Base MPLS Imposition MSD (BMI-MSD) signals the total number of >> MPLS labels that can be imposed, including all >> service/transport/special labels. >> >> The answer to your question is 6 >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> Jeff >> >> On Dec 13, 2019, 3:42 AM -0800, Nat Kao <lekao@pyxisworks.org>, wrote: >> >> Hello, SPRING WG. >> >> How do we deal with an SR-TE policy headend with different MSDs for >> different types of traffic? >> >> For example, a headend H can impose: >> 6 transport labels for plain IPv4 packets; >> 5 transport labels + 1 IPv6 ExpNull label for plain IPv6 packets; >> >> 3 transport labels + 3 VPN labels for VPN packets. >> >> >> >> a) For a plain IPv4 route R4 and a VPN route Rv both steered into the >> SR-TE policy P1 with SID list <S1, S2, S3, S4, S5>, what will H perform in >> this situation? >> b) What is the MSD of H? 6, 5 or 3? >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Nat. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> spring mailing list >> spring@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring >> >> _______________________________________________ >> spring mailing list >> spring@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring >> >> -- >> >> Gyan S. Mishra >> >> IT Network Engineering & Technology >> >> Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ) >> >> 13101 Columbia Pike >> <https://www..google.com/maps/search/13101+Columbia+Pike?entry=gmail&source=g> >> FDC1 3rd Floor >> >> Silver Spring, MD 20904 >> >> United States >> >> Phone: 301 502-1347 >> >> Email: gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com >> >> www.linkedin.com/in/networking-technologies-consultant >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> spring mailing list >> spring@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring >> >> _______________________________________________ >> spring mailing list >> spring@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring >> > -- > > Gyan S. Mishra > > IT Network Engineering & Technology > > Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ) > > 13101 Columbia Pike > <https://www.google.com/maps/search/13101+Columbia+Pike?entry=gmail&source=g> > FDC1 3rd Floor > > Silver Spring, MD 20904 > > United States > > Phone: 301 502-1347 > > Email: gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com > > www.linkedin.com/in/networking-technologies-consultant > > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > spring@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring > > -- Gyan S. Mishra IT Network Engineering & Technology Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ) 13101 Columbia Pike FDC1 3rd Floor Silver Spring, MD 20904 United States Phone: 301 502-1347 Email: gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com www.linkedin.com/in/networking-technologies-consultant
- [spring] Different MSDs for different traffic typ… Nat Kao
- Re: [spring] Different MSDs for different traffic… Jeff Tantsura
- Re: [spring] Different MSDs for different traffic… Nat Kao
- Re: [spring] Different MSDs for different traffic… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [spring] Different MSDs for different traffic… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [spring] Different MSDs for different traffic… Jeff Tantsura
- Re: [spring] Different MSDs for different traffic… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [spring] Different MSDs for different traffic… Nat Kao
- Re: [spring] Different MSDs for different traffic… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] Different MSDs for different traffic… Nat Kao
- Re: [spring] Different MSDs for different traffic… Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
- Re: [spring] Different MSDs for different traffic… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [spring] Different MSDs for different traffic… Jeff Tantsura
- Re: [spring] Different MSDs for different traffic… Jeff Tantsura
- Re: [spring] Different MSDs for different traffic… Jeff Tantsura
- Re: [spring] Different MSDs for different traffic… Nat Kao
- Re: [spring] Different MSDs for different traffic… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [spring] Different MSDs for different traffic… Jeff Tantsura
- Re: [spring] Different MSDs for different traffic… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [spring] Different MSDs for different traffic… Nat Kao