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) < xiejingr...@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-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Gyan Mishra > *Sent:* Wednesday, December 14, 2022 11:25 AM > *To:* IETF IPPM WG <i...@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.mis...@verizon.com <gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com>* > > *M 301 502-1347* > > > -- <http://www.verizon.com/> *Gyan Mishra* *Network Solutions A**rchitect * *Email gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com <gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com>* *M 301 502-1347*
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
