Robert, match DSCP X set context Y or plane Z doesn’t make it any different. It has been used and abused in any possible way. If you want to write a BCP saying - use it for X/Y/Z but not for A/B/C because of.... - your business.
As to using it someplace else - I’d expect respective documents to cover the use, flex-algo drafts as to your example. More fundamentally, (flex-algo is the best example) we have got context aware metadata in a form of: MPLS labels (SR SID), v6 EHs, plethora of overlay encaps, etc, with accompanying CP extensions that can be used to achieve exactly that. Now tell me - why again DSCP? P.S. in my previous life, working on 5G transport slicing (yes, i know :)) - i needed per slice identity over the common transport, we ended up looking at UDP port ranges, rather than DSCP - too few bits Cheers, Jeff On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 23:37 Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> wrote: > Jeff, > > > What architecture? > > PBR is a form of: > > match DSCP X > > set next-hop Y > > needs no interoperability... > > That's pretty narrow view. I could say the worst possible example :) You > would have to either encapsulate or apply your sample config consistently > on every hop. Brrrrr. > > To me DSCP can be used to map packets to different routing context, > different plane or can be used as a parameter in flex-algorithm. > > Thx, > R. > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 8:19 AM Jeff Tantsura <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Tony, >> >> What architecture? >> PBR is a form of: >> match DSCP X >> set next-hop Y >> needs no interoperability... >> If someone wants to describe how they use a particular vendor feature to >> solve a particular problem in a BCP, sure, the more BCPs - the better. >> >> Wrt using DSCP in routing decision process - it was a bad idea back then, >> hasn’t got any better now... besides - now we have got a toolbox that >> wasn’t available then. >> >> Cheers, >> Jeff >> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 22:56 Tony Li <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Nov 15, 2018, at 8:47 PM, Jeff Tantsura <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> The question is really - what is here to standardize? >>> >>> >>> >>> There’s a fine architectural BCP here: this is how we are solving >>> problem XYZ. Please don’t break this. >>> >>> Tony >>> >>>
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
