Re: [Ippm-ioam-ix-dt] Proposed change to the draft

Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com> Mon, 23 September 2019 07:40 UTC

Return-Path: <zhoutianran@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: ippm-ioam-ix-dt@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ippm-ioam-ix-dt@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2977A1201E4 for <ippm-ioam-ix-dt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Sep 2019 00:40:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ozwb0fmrlCZH for <ippm-ioam-ix-dt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Sep 2019 00:40:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A68291202DD for <ippm-ioam-ix-dt@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Sep 2019 00:40:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from LHREML712-CAH.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.106]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id C62157C737F7E112B970; Mon, 23 Sep 2019 08:40:02 +0100 (IST)
Received: from lhreml706-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.55) by LHREML712-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Mon, 23 Sep 2019 08:40:02 +0100
Received: from lhreml706-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.55) by lhreml706-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.55) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1713.5; Mon, 23 Sep 2019 08:40:02 +0100
Received: from NKGEML414-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.75) by lhreml706-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.55) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA_P256) id 15.1.1713.5 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 23 Sep 2019 08:40:01 +0100
Received: from NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com ([fe80::a54a:89d2:c471:ff]) by nkgeml414-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.75]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Mon, 23 Sep 2019 15:39:55 +0800
From: Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com>
To: Haoyu song <haoyu.song@huawei.com>, "ippm-ioam-ix-dt@ietf.org" <ippm-ioam-ix-dt@ietf.org>, Tal Mizrahi <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: Proposed change to the draft
Thread-Index: AdVuR8HNqabRlWodRtO61HOta0kIkwDmKM2w
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2019 07:39:54 +0000
Message-ID: <BBA82579FD347748BEADC4C445EA0F21BEFDAE1B@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <78A2745BE9B57D4F9D27F86655EB87F938AAAABF@sjceml521-mbx.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <78A2745BE9B57D4F9D27F86655EB87F938AAAABF@sjceml521-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.156.116]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BBA82579FD347748BEADC4C445EA0F21BEFDAE1BNKGEML515MBXchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm-ioam-ix-dt/PpEhO-gB0a1VT0CRyRr8PbumPgw>
Subject: Re: [Ippm-ioam-ix-dt] Proposed change to the draft
X-BeenThere: ippm-ioam-ix-dt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPPM iOAM Immediate Export \(IX\) design team" <ippm-ioam-ix-dt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ippm-ioam-ix-dt>, <mailto:ippm-ioam-ix-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ippm-ioam-ix-dt/>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm-ioam-ix-dt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-ioam-ix-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm-ioam-ix-dt>, <mailto:ippm-ioam-ix-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2019 07:40:17 -0000

Hi All,

I am sorry I cannot access the meeting due to the link quality. I would like to know some discussion details on the hop count.
Firstly, I think this field is necessary. In addition to Haoyu's comments, my add on is the usage when the lower layer encapsulation does not have the ttl information. This is common case. I also know some case that the ttl is not continued, e.g., hvpn. So in anyway, I wish it could be attached, optional or fixed.
Secondly, the IOAM-Trace-Type bitmap has one bit to indicate the presence of hop_lim. I am thinking if we can reuse it. If this bit is set, where to put this field? So that every transit node can operate it?

Thanks,
Tianran


From: Ippm-ioam-ix-dt [mailto:ippm-ioam-ix-dt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Haoyu song
Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2019 1:41 AM
To: ippm-ioam-ix-dt@ietf.org; Tal Mizrahi <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com>
Subject: [Ippm-ioam-ix-dt] Proposed change to the draft

Hi Team,
Below is my proposed change. I tried to directly update in Github but the format is not correct, so Tal please help to edit the text and merge it into the current draft. Thanks!
Haoyu
-----------------------------------
To help correlate and order the exported postcard packets for the same original packet, it is possible to include a 1-byte Hop_Count field in the DEX header (presumably by claiming some space from the Flags field), which starts from 0 and increments its value by one at every IOAM-enabled hop. The Hop_Count field value needs to be included in the exported postcard packet. An issue of this field is that it needs to be updated at every IOAM-enabled hop. Without it, the DEX header is basically read-only except that it will be inserted at a head node and removed at an end node.
An alternative approach is to request to collect the Hop_Lim/Node_ID data by setting the corresponding bit in the IOAM-Trace-Type bitmap.  The Hop_Lim data is acquired from the lower level protocol header such as TTL for IPv4 and Hop Limit for IPv6. In addition to requiring extra packet parsing, Hop_Lim must be coupled with Node_ID which means 4 bytes are needed to be exported. More important, Hop_Lim is not exactly equivalent to Hop_Count, because Hop_Lim is updated at every hop, whether the hop is IOAM-enabled or not. A consequence is, by monitoring Hop_Lim only, if some value is missing, one cannot tell whether or not an exported postcard packet is missing.
Therefore, further discussion is needed to decide if the DEX header should include an explicit Hop_Count field, or by default, set the IOAM-Trace-Type bit to collect the Hop_Lim/Node_ID data field.