Hi Alvaro and WG,
I read the draft, it describes very important STAMP operations details for
SR-MPLS. Especially I like the new loopback and loopback with TSF modes, which
should be very practical and useful IMO.Also I would like to acknowledge very
straightforward language of the document.Thus I support its publication.
However here are some my comments for the new version:1) Part 5 STAMP
Reference model.I afraid that current text have too many MAY for the
destination UDP port allocation scheme that may (apologies for the tautology)
create potential interop issues when a SDN controller and
Session-Sender/Session-Reflector will support different methods. How can they
negotiate the common one ?What if a SDN controller decides to use the User or
Dynamic port ranges (as described in RFC 8762 section 4.1 ) but routers
support only default UDP port 862 ? There is the much stricter guidance about
using Dynamic port ranges in 5.1.
Thus more stronger language is needed there IMO as well as additional
clarification for the interop scenarios.
2) The draft says that the IPv6 flow label must be set to the value used by the
data packets. It means that Session-Sender should track all FL numbers used for
different services (which could use STAMP) and keep them in some local table.
Are there any potential scalability restrictions ?3) 6.2.1 says that to measure
delay of a SR Policy there will be separate STAMP session per each SL of a
Candidate Path. I fully support that idea but what if there will 64, 128 or
even more SLs and as result the same number of STAMP sessions per ONE SR Policy
(and potentially even more in case of composite policy) ? Shouldn't we think
about some optimization proposals for such cases ?4) 9.1.1 says that TSF
capability signaling is outside of the draft scope. I think it will be worth at
least to mention some of them.5) !2 ECMP measurements in SR-MPLS networks is
very important and I think that currently it is too short/general and we have
to think about additional ideas/details for it in the next versions.
Thank you.
SY,Boris
On Friday, October 16, 2026 at 10:54:04 PM GMT+3, Alvaro Retana via
Datatracker <[email protected]> wrote:
This message starts a WG Last Call for:
draft-ietf-spring-stamp-srpm-mpls-12
This Working Group Last Call ends on 2026-11-04
Abstract:
Segment Routing (SR) can be used to steer packets through a network
employing source routing. SR can be applied to both MPLS (SR-MPLS)
and IPv6 (SRv6) data planes. This document specifies procedures for
performance measurement in SR-MPLS networks using the Simple Two-Way
Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP), as specified in RFC 8762, along
with its optional extensions specified in RFC 8972 and the SR-
specific extensions specified in RFC 9503. These procedures measure
SR-MPLS paths, including Segment Lists of SR-MPLS Policies, SR-MPLS
IGP best paths, and SR-MPLS IGP Flexible Algorithm (Flex-Algo) paths,
as well as Layer-3 and Layer-2 services carried over those paths.
File can be retrieved from:
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-spring-stamp-srpm-mpls-12.txt
Please review and indicate your support or objection to proceed with the
publication of this document by replying to this email keeping
[email protected] in copy. Objections should be explained and suggestions to
resolve them are highly appreciated.
This document requires in-depth technical reviews to move forward.
Authors, and WG participants in general, are reminded of the Intellectual
Property Rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79 [1].
Appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions
of BCP 78 [1] and BCP 79 [2] must be filed, if you are aware of any.
Sanctions available for application to violators of IETF IPR Policy can be
found at [3].
Thank you.
[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp78/
[2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp79/
[3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6701/
The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-stamp-srpm-mpls/
There is also an HTML version available at:
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-spring-stamp-srpm-mpls-12.html
A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-spring-stamp-srpm-mpls-12
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
