[Teas] Re: Revisiting NRP Selector

[Vishnu Pavan Beeram <[e-mail]>]

The chairs would like to draw a consensus based on the responses to the
questions posed in this thread. Thanks to everyone who sent in their
responses. We will leave this thread open till Jan 27th to see if there are
more responses.

We had a couple of opinions expressed at the mike during the last TEAS WG
session on this topic (
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-121-teas/#08-1410-10-min-title-realizing-network-slices-in-ipmpls-networks)
Please do bring that discussion to the list.

Regards,
-Pavan and Oscar

On Wed, Oct 9, 2024 at 12:45 PM Vishnu Pavan Beeram <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> We had a virtual interim meeting on May 29th 2024 to discuss the
> following NRP Selector specific items:
>
>    - Generic requirements and options for carrying NRP Selector in IP and
>    MPLS packets
>    - The relevant modeling aspects
>    - The data plane specific extensions that come into play when a
>    dedicated identifier is used as the NRP selector.
>
>
>
> The meeting minutes are captured at:
>
>    -
>    https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2024-teas-01/materials/minutes-interim-2024-teas-01-202405291400-00
>
>
>
> We (the chairs) are starting a thread to close on some of the items
> specific to having a dedicated identifier that is used as NRP selector
> (note that NRP selector refers to the marking in the packet’s network layer
> header that is used to associate the packet with an NRP).
>
>    - What do we call this dedicated identifier field?
>       - “NRP Selector ID” and “NRP Data Plane ID” have been proposed so
>       far.
>    - Length of the dedicated identifier field
>       - Is it okay for this to be different for different data-plane
>       types?
>       - A 32-bit field has been proposed for the IPv6 Data-Plane; A
>       couple of options – 8 bits and 13 bits – have been proposed for the MPLS
>       data plane
>          - Please note that the actual data-plane specific encodings are
>          outside the scope of the TEAS WG.
>       - “Strict” match indicator
>       - When a dedicated identifier is used as the NRP Selector, is it
>       useful to have an explicit indicator to determine what to do with a packet
>       that cannot be mapped to an NRP?
>          - Drop the packet vs Map it to a default set of network resources
>       - The actual encoding of this “indicator” could be different for
>       different data-plane types and will need to be discussed in the respective
>       WGs (outside the scope of TEAS WG).
>
>
>
> Please chime in with your thoughts on these items.
>
> - Pavan and Oscar
>
> ps: @Jie – Thanks for the offline prod. Please feel free to add other open
> items specific to NRP selector (that we may have missed) to the above list.
>