Re: [spring] Progressing the PBT-M “Zero Overhead property” draft
Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> Fri, 06 January 2023 03:35 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 C57E0C15155A; Thu, 5 Jan 2023 19:35:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.094
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.094 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 4tkMxWBGBkbr; Thu, 5 Jan 2023 19:35:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qt1-x82e.google.com (mail-qt1-x82e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::82e]) (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 A89F9C15154F; Thu, 5 Jan 2023 19:35:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qt1-x82e.google.com with SMTP id a16so1138973qtw.10; Thu, 05 Jan 2023 19:35:48 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=CZNafFbQ95abaeolhQD1c8ufcRLZOHkKNrWZIzlYBdM=; b=PCh0bdEN4G5+9RY8LfVTpJVwd+AO0A3ND9oD8gfKFo6/6BmaI/wTMXEXz99cy5fLx6 +8LP25q/j+GNM7dgukmBNYMYL2JoQWhyhm5tAn+ophMjZ1hWEBk9aM2Pw33AD98EmmyX 4s6PXr/ISEM2WJ7FEq2Pt8RoHLgFfRz3KdkfwLn9qgZIFNO0oDK7hDpyvLF5aJWcdPw9 jQVtqQSNn0PJI2th6Pw3lf6GR+bxgHjp+neMe29lvqbRtrv7No4YOIdEfooMtKJjo9vb vw/w1EVC16nf0pH28skJupjNQMpLFL+CLIwy14YI58Nu7iRNW/vhgp7ZqdgsDGOAGEPp m03Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; 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=CZNafFbQ95abaeolhQD1c8ufcRLZOHkKNrWZIzlYBdM=; b=RgmyTZ0myZsWse/gFow+6XzsnTQRLfYr7qhOUGGSmYOVlnRrrz7Qr2+jR+LfKr7mDL 6qg8mmGCGvURsWByG+56xeAn47fOjPftSOhsVfZisEL/ssPWd1iAey8qtZJTLiM4Ky24 iPomGoqdyZ31/4S700Br8rr504wK0iMVThJn49uC1KFEGfyTX+WqZpIaCoJnui0PeRcP z/MwJVIwFCGR/BFAby157pTifqxPMiVedpAMUNSH2beqqF6Jt+K7bnE5IySjrlkjcVle 7tLqmgygsw7bAGjLjtITP8Sq2RXuOTmtBmmtKnj/jOuTlAN9fbkFmwwg/tPv6vkA/bqy xUOg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFqh2kq0KRyRfWobXAEJHMfWom6Vd+iINy785BTe9DqGN7pPlKiG8/q8 s/j3ecjjxILEvzKGL+2WXg0nekQAuDEs7WrlNAU/JHLF
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMrXdXvbVSO2CQQ/07P9cZ1XIZsItrJIWfO9nDck4Yn/wlE+SSpKvoltOCY2M0Qr65FFm5tqPZytln9AwekcaRxGrFw=
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:72c2:0:b0:3a9:72bb:650a with SMTP id o2-20020ac872c2000000b003a972bb650amr2553786qtp.509.1672976147578; Thu, 05 Jan 2023 19:35:47 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CABNhwV38P-WV1jGJFgAGuCPws=kBLm9Ryhr0RdidebAAwVO_NQ@mail.gmail.com> <8b01f1b6bc764779b51aecf7942226ae@huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <8b01f1b6bc764779b51aecf7942226ae@huawei.com>
From: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2023 22:35:36 -0500
Message-ID: <CABNhwV2iiUzWp24UZ1z+_wNfoyJ6ZnsoiOgY7tH59czaax1RHQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Xiejingrong (Jingrong)" <xiejingrong@huawei.com>
Cc: IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>, SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="000000000000fec3fb05f1901cc3"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/vkZvzb7XKjnq8cv3yjYAzlVaOR8>
Subject: Re: [spring] Progressing the PBT-M “Zero Overhead property” draft
X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Fri, 06 Jan 2023 03:35:52 -0000
Hi Jingrong Many thanks for reviewing the draft and your support and feedback and POV. Yes we would like to see some more feedback from the community on PBT-M. Thank you Gyan On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 10:02 PM Xiejingrong (Jingrong) < xiejingrong@huawei.com> wrote: > Hi Gyan, > > > > Thank you firstly for introducing this document to spring and to me (not > subscribed IPPM yet ^-^). > > After read this draft and the discussions under this thread, I have > recalled my understanding on passport, postcard (PBT-Mark, DEX). > > I think PBT-M is a useful approach for postcard telemetry in general, and > Segment Routing is a solid use case for PBT-M to be adoption. I like it > and even prefer it personally. > > > > I feel that, 9326 is a big compromise and entanglement between passport > and postcard. Please correct me if I understand it wrong. > > l RFC9326 want to be “postcard” mode, as it states: This Option-Type is > used as a trigger for IOAM data to be directly exported or locally > aggregated without being pushed into in-flight data packets. > > l RFC9326 reuses RFC9197 as a base, and RFC9197 starts from an > “postcard” mode, as it states: IOAM records OAM information within the > packet while the packet traverses a particular network domain. > > > > As I said above, I like and even prefer the idea of PBT-M, so I tend to > agree with your points below, and I am willing to see the progress of this > document. > > However, I don’t have that strong POV. I can live with 9326 and PBT-M of > this document to be parallel, and I would also like to hear the view points > from the community. > > > > “To make RFC 9326 viable out the gate for any operators to implement, we > really need the changes and updates to RFC 9326 described in this draft to > be progressed.” > > “This draft should be and I think the authors of this draft as well as > the authors of RFC 9326 would as well agree that this draft should be > Standards Track and update the base specification RFC 9326 for PBT. ” > > > > > > Best Regards, > > Jingrong > > > > > 本邮件及其附件可能含有华为公司的保密信息,仅限于发送给上面地址中列出的个人或群组。禁止任何其他人以任何形式使用(包括但不限于全部或部分地泄露、复制、或散发)本邮件中的信息。如果您错收了本邮件,请您立即电话或邮件通知发件人并删除本邮件! > This e-mail and its attachments may contain confidential information from > HUAWEI, which is intended only for the person or entity whose address is > listed above. Any use of the information contained herein in any way > (including, but not limited to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction, > or dissemination) by persons other than the intended recipient(s) is > prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender > by phone or email immediately and delete it! > > > > *From:* spring [mailto:spring-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Gyan Mishra > *Sent:* Wednesday, December 14, 2022 11:25 AM > *To:* IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>; SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org> > *Subject:* [spring] Progressing the PBT-M “Zero Overhead property” draft > > > > > > Dear IPPM WG > > > > RE: Progressing draft-song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry-15 > > > > I would like to provide some important feedback related to the draft and > the critically of this draft to the industry at large especially with 5G > MNOs and future soon to be 6G and UPF F1 interface network slicing and IPPM > telemetry for Flex Algo latency constraint for ultra low latency path for > MEC services and end to end ultra low latency path instantiation. > > > > My POV as well as others whom I have discussed the draft in and outside > the WG is that in order to make PBT viable and useful to operators to > deploy, the changes and improvements described in this draft are very > important and not just to the IPPM WG but to the industry at large namely > for deployments of Segment Routing both SR-MPLS and SRv6 and viability of > IOAM in-situ telemetry. > > > > This is a huge issue today and PBT RFC 9326 is an attempt to solve the > issues with telemetry with Segment Routing but unfortunately that is not > enough and now with this draft, PBT based telemetry with Segment Routing > can finally come to fruition for all operators around the world wanting to > deploy Segment Routing. > > > > I think with SR both SR-MPLS and SRv6 MSD and SR-MPLS Maximum readable > label depth issues and MPLS MNA extensibility discussed in the MPLS Open DT > meetings are important issues and considerations and with IOAM data with > DEX PBT solution can possibly resolves the issue with the export with zero > in-situ overhead philosophy and is a fabulous attempt but with a major > hitch. > > > > To make RFC 9326 viable out the gate for any operators to implement, we > really need the changes and updates to RFC 9326 described in this draft to > be progressed. > > > > This draft should be and I think the authors of this draft as well as the > authors of RFC 9326 would as well agree that this draft should be Standards > Track and update the base specification RFC 9326 for PBT. > > > > I believe that would be the best path forward for the WG. > > > > All comments are welcome on this important topic. > > > > Many Thanks > > > > Gyan > > -- > > [image: 图像已被发件人删除。] <http://www.verizon.com/> > > *Gyan Mishra* > > *Network Solutions Architect * > > *Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com <gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com>* > > *M 301 502-1347* > > > -- <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*
- [spring] Progressing the PBT-M “Zero Overhead pro… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [spring] [ippm] Progressing the PBT-M “Zero O… Tianran Zhou
- Re: [spring] [ippm]Progressing the PBT-M “Zero Ov… 庞冉(联通集团中国联通研究院-本 部)
- Re: [spring] [ippm]Progressing the PBT-M “Zero Ov… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [spring] [ippm] Progressing the PBT-M “Zero O… Rakesh Gandhi
- Re: [spring] [ippm] Progressing the PBT-M “Zero O… Tianran Zhou
- Re: [spring] [ippm] Progressing the PBT-M “Zero O… li_zhenqiang@hotmail.com
- Re: [spring] [ippm] Progressing the PBT-M “Zero O… Haoyu Song
- Re: [spring] Progressing the PBT-M “Zero Overhead… Xiejingrong (Jingrong)
- Re: [spring] Progressing the PBT-M “Zero Overhead… Gyan Mishra