Hi Hooman, thank you for bringing this work to my attention. That draft indeed seems more appropriate to discuss all issues related to the use of MPLS echo request/reply in combination with Replication Segment. As I understand it, DDMAP is a useful optional extension, particularly when applied in a traceroute mode. I cannot find DDMAP being discussed in RFC 8287 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8287/>. Is it assumed that DDMAP is not applicable in an SR-MPLS domain? Could there be any specific procedures for a node in SR-MPLS domain that received an MPLS echo request message that contains DDMAP TLV?
Regards, Greg On Sun, Apr 28, 2024 at 6:49 PM Hooman Bidgoli (Nokia) < hooman.bidg...@nokia.com> wrote: > Greg > > > > There is also draft-ietf-pim-p2mp-policy-ping-04 - P2MP Policy Ping > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-p2mp-policy-ping/04/> > which is also waiting for last call. > > > Hooman > > > > *From:* spring <spring-boun...@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Rishabh Parekh > *Sent:* Saturday, April 27, 2024 11:40 AM > *To:* Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com> > *Cc:* Michael McBride <michael.mcbr...@futurewei.com>; p...@ietf.org; > spring@ietf.org > *Subject:* Re: [spring] [pim] wglc: draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy > > > > > > *CAUTION:* This is an external email. Please be very careful when > clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for > additional information. > > > > Greg, > > Some OAM considerations were added to the parent Replication Segment > document, now RFC 9524, in section 2.2.2 and Appendix A.2.1 during the WGLC > in SPRING. > > > > -Rishabh > > > > On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 12:25 AM Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Dear Authors, > > thank you for a well-written document that is a pleasure to read. I > believe that it is ready to progress. However, I have one general > observation to make. Although IETF documents are required to include an > analysis of the existing and any new security threats, and requested IANA > actions, there's no formal requirement to have a text that considers how > the defined mechanisms affect existing OAM tools, point to any existing > gaps that have been identified and need further work. As a suggestion, it > seems that because p2mp SR policies are different from well-known p2p use > cases, perhaps this document needs some additional text that points to the > OAM-related aspects, specific to p2mp SR policies, e.g., echo request/reply > (a.k.a. ping and traceroute), BFD, performance monitoring. WDYT? > > > > Regards, > > Greg > > > > On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 4:37 AM Michael McBride < > michael.mcbr...@futurewei.com> wrote: > > Hello good people, > > > > Today begins a two week wglc for > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy-08. > The related (normative) replication segment draft has now been published as > a standards track RFC. The poll in the Brisbane pim room was 3 in favor and > 0 against. Please respond with your opinions on the advancement of this > draft. > > > > Thanks, > > mike > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > spring@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring > > _______________________________________________ > pim mailing list > p...@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim > >
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
