Re: [spring] The SPRING WG has placed draft-schmutzer-spring-cs-sr-policy in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

Hi Christian,

The draft as written today is technically not bad.

However if you read the below it clearly appears that the aim of the
document is to offer transport services of SONET/SDH or circuits analogy:

   IP services
   typically require ECMP and TI-LFA,

*while transport services that   normally are delivered via dedicated
circuit-switched SONET/SDH or   OTN networks do require:*

   Such a *"transport centric"* behavior is referred to as *"circuit-style"*
   in this document.

So if you could s/cs-sr/qos-sr/ my concerns would be addressed.

If not false marketing diminishes the value of technical content.

Regards,
Robert.

On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 7:10 PM Christian Schmutzer (cschmutz) <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Robert et al,
>
> This draft does not talk about nor does define mechanisms that “emulate”
> optical (SONET/SDH, OTN or DWDM) circuits over IP/MPLS. Rather the draft
> does describe how various SR methods can be used to establish traffic
> engineered paths across an SR network in order to address requirements such
> as bidirectional, co-routed paths, end-to-end path-protection and bandwidth
> guarantees/bookkeeping for delivering P2P (pseudo wire) services.
>
> While some of those characteristics may seem somewhat similar with
> circuit-switched SONET/SDH, OTN and DWDM networks to some, at the end we
> are still working with a packet switched IP network as such.
>
> I hope this clarifies the goal of the draft and does address your concerns
>
> Christian
>
> On 26.05.2023, at 13:30, Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> 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 AM Gyan Mishra <[e-mail]> 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’t think it’s
>> relevant, however maybe informative references could be added.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Gyan
>>
>> On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 5:51 PM Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]> 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 matter
>>> 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 PM Gyan Mishra <[e-mail]>
>>> 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 UPSR /
>>>> BLSR rings, now on SR based IP / Optical networks having the same working
>>>> and protect make before break MOB scheme for 1:1 protection revertive or
>>>> non revertive with stateful PCE based hop by hop Co-routed disjoint static
>>>> 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 <
>>>> [e-mail]> 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 the
>>>>> 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
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.verizon.com/>
>>>> *Gyan Mishra*
>>>> *Network Solutions A**rchitect *
>>>> *Email [e-mail] <[e-mail]>*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *M 301 502-1347 *
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> spring mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
>>>>
>>> --
>>
>> <http://www.verizon.com/>
>> *Gyan Mishra*
>> *Network Solutions A**rchitect *
>> *Email [e-mail] <[e-mail]>*
>>
>>
>> *M 301 502-1347 *
>>
>>
>