Re: [tsvwg] A New Draft Uploaded (draft-qiang-tsvwg-udp-options-bounded-latency-00)

"qiangli (D)" <qiangli3@huawei.com> Mon, 11 March 2019 01:18 UTC

Return-Path: <qiangli3@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9176E129A86 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Mar 2019 18:18:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 x6jkVbhAKqOT for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Mar 2019 18:18:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C9B21286CD for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Mar 2019 18:18:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from LHREML713-CAH.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 88A718FA155428641174; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 01:18:12 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from DGGEMI406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.17.144) by LHREML713-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 01:18:12 +0000
Received: from DGGEMI529-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.5.3]) by dggemi406-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.3.17.144]) with mapi id 14.03.0399.000; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 09:18:05 +0800
From: "qiangli (D)" <qiangli3@huawei.com>
To: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
CC: tsvwg <tsvwg@ietf.org>, Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
Thread-Topic: [tsvwg] A New Draft Uploaded (draft-qiang-tsvwg-udp-options-bounded-latency-00)
Thread-Index: AdTVTUw267hC5GTQTZyGvOBVjR2e1wAN/5oAAIfqJTA=
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 01:18:05 +0000
Message-ID: <06C389826B926F48A557D5DB5A54C4ED45BF5F52@dggemi529-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <06C389826B926F48A557D5DB5A54C4ED45BE93CB@dggemi529-mbs.china.huawei.com> <CALx6S37Ba9c45cwZbqfsaA=geQGW0FK9NohZTRZe2_pMbK2pWA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALx6S37Ba9c45cwZbqfsaA=geQGW0FK9NohZTRZe2_pMbK2pWA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.130.163.138]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/tzIX3wtY5Gc1CCuH14UwsJRfM5M>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] A New Draft Uploaded (draft-qiang-tsvwg-udp-options-bounded-latency-00)
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsvwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 01:18:16 -0000

Hi Tom,

I fully agree with you, Hop-by-hop option is an effective way to work in IPv6 scenario, we are also going to work on it, and UDP option is another way. As vendor, we do care about processing performance, and we also value UDP option as a potential way for end-user to express their requirement directly to network, some evaluation test is needed.


Best regards,

Cristina QIANG

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Herbert [mailto:tom@herbertland.com] 
Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2019 12:03 AM
To: qiangli (D) <qiangli3@huawei.com>
Cc: tsvwg <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] A New Draft Uploaded (draft-qiang-tsvwg-udp-options-bounded-latency-00)

On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 5:22 PM qiangli (D) <qiangli3@huawei.com> wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
>
>
> We have uploaded a new draft (draft-qiang-tsvwg-udp-options-bounded-latency-00) that explores the use of UDP options for bounded latency forwarding. Review and comment is highly appreciated.
>
Hi Cristina,

One comment.

From the draft: "However in an IP data plane, there is no enough space in the IP common header."

This is what extension headers are designed for. The draft is describing what should be a new Hop-by-Hop option.

Also, I don't think router vendors are going to be very happy if they have to start parsing packet trailers in the high performance data path.

Tom


>
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Cristina QIANG
>
>
>
>
>
> ==============================================
>
> A new version of I-D, 
> draft-qiang-tsvwg-udp-options-bounded-latency-00.txt
>
> has been successfully submitted by Li Qiang and posted to the IETF repository.
>
>
>
> Name:               draft-qiang-tsvwg-udp-options-bounded-latency
>
> Revision:  00
>
> Title:                  UDP Options for Bounded Latency
>
> Document date:       2019-03-08
>
> Group:               Individual Submission
>
> Pages:               9
>
> URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-qiang-tsvwg-udp-options-bounded-latency-00.txt
>
> Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-qiang-tsvwg-udp-options-bounded-latency/
>
> Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-qiang-tsvwg-udp-options-bounded-latency-00
>
> Htmlized:       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-qiang-tsvwg-udp-options-bounded-latency
>
>
>
>
>
> Abstract:
>
>    This document explores the use of UDP options for packet forwarding
>
>    with bounded latency.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>
>
>
> The IETF Secretariat
>
>