and let users to choose.
Best regards,
Haoyu
From: ippm On Behalf Of li_zhenqi...@hotmail.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2023 8:25 AM
To: Tianran Zhou ; Rakesh Gandhi
Cc: spring@ietf.org; ippm
Subject: Re: [ippm] [spring] Progressing the PBT-M “Zero Overhead property”
draft
Hello all,
I've
scene?
Best Regards,
Zhenqiang Li
li_zhenqi...@hotmail.com
发件人： Tianran Zhou
发送时间： 2022-12-24 11:18
收件人： Rakesh Gandhi
抄送： Gyan Mishra; IETF IPPM WG; SPRING WG
主题： Re: [spring][ippm] Progressing the PBT-M “Zero Overhead property” draft
Hi Rakesh,
Thanks very much for your suggestion.
I agree
Hi Rakesh,
Thanks very much for your suggestion.
I agree the ECMP is one special case that we should take care.
The authors should include some text on ECMP considerations.
Do you have any special concern that wish the authors to consider in the
revision?
Cheers,
Tianran
From: Rakesh Gandhi
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 wrote:
> Hi Gyan,
>
>
>
Hi Pang
Thank you for bringing up the extension headers issues. That is a
complicated issue with HBH processing and being able to process in the fast
path.
On 6MAN Bob Hinden has the HBH processing draft to help with the issue.
Hi Gyan,
I’ve read this draft, and I agree with you this is very useful.
The value I find special on the PBT-M proposed in this document is that it may
not need an extension header. And it could be easy to implement.
There are a lot of discussions in 6MAN and MPLS (MNA) about the device behavior
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
