Hi all, Yes, this is a useful document for telemetry use-cases where no metadata is carried in the packet. One comment I have is that the document may add some text on ECMP considerations.
Happy Holidays! Thanks, Rakesh On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 4:09 AM Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran= 40huawei....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > Hi Gyan, > > > > Thanks very much for raising this discussion in the mailing list. > > As discussed in the document, there are pros and cons both for PBT-M and > PBT-I(IOAM-DEX). > > I really think this is useful, especially when the network is MTU > sensitive or not powerful, like DetNet. > > I think the WG should progress it as a standard document. > > > > Best, > > Tianran > > > > > > *发件人:* ippm [mailto:ippm-boun...@ietf.org] *代表 *Gyan Mishra > *发送时间:* 2022年12月14日 11:25 > *收件人:* IETF IPPM WG <i...@ietf.org>; SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org> > *主题:* [ippm] 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 > > -- > > <http://www.verizon.com/> > > *Gyan Mishra* > > *Network Solutions Architect * > > *Email gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com <gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com>* > > *M 301 502-1347* > > > _______________________________________________ > ippm mailing list > i...@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm >
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
