Hi Robert, When you say “no marker of any sort is needed”, I think actually you mean to use the markers in another layer, e.g. the IP layer.
In a layered network, IMO each layer (Ethernet, MPLS, IP, etc.) needs its own OAM mechanisms. For example, we cannot use Ethernet OAM to replace IP OAM☺ Best regards, Jie From: mpls [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Robert Raszuk Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 3:08 PM To: Adrian Farrel Cc: draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths; spring; mpls; Zafar Ali (zali) Subject: Re: [mpls] [spring] redux: Special purpose labels in draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths Adrian I do not agree with with #2 .. no marker of any sort is needed. And debugging LDP networks is no different then debugging IP networks so sure some who are used to ATM/Frame Relay find it very hard to troubleshoot. Best r. On Nov 16, 2017 13:35, "Adrian Farrel" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Let's unpick a couple of things... 1. This work is not talking about per-flow accounting, it is talking about peer SR-path accounting 2. ipfix on its own does not cut it because you still have to put a marker in the packets 3. Yes, SR assumes there is no (i.e. zero) state per SR-path in the network But this third point causes a tension: we want to use SR because it is good, but we want to do transit node diagnostics because (frankly) they are necessary. To get the full picture of why they are necessary read the draft, or consider ECMP. This discussion will not be unfamiliar to those who tried to debug LDP networks. Adrian
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
