IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ippm] Mail regarding draft-fz-6man-ipv6-alt-mark

Tom Herbert <tom@quantonium.net> Sat, 19 October 2019 15:33 UTC

Return-Path: <tom@quantonium.net>
X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27E1212002F for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 19 Oct 2019 08:33:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=quantonium-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 YHnf4jvhS4IO for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 19 Oct 2019 08:33:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ed1-x530.google.com (mail-ed1-x530.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::530]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 71FBD120025 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Sat, 19 Oct 2019 08:33:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-x530.google.com with SMTP id h33so6787366edh.12 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Sat, 19 Oct 2019 08:33:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=quantonium-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=lV4fp4W9l2XWFr5XdKTOnKToh1VBljI+oZ/zY0KMUEk=; b=ABig72sp3Nb6/uRHXRyX+yeP8uYBamG+Xw6xyS/iQQIfYMtTu7GBRDOIe8BuemTFEr GRT2LcwqOo6X3MaH9YZ+eTtKnvqq4Ikow+oh8Uz2DSHk5aDf6aVQkW9b3o7xCpM7C47T 7QR4ds6sxU/UzyqrtOEYT3bng1llMzYyTvFOn0n1YUL1rCr1EsQppeIwzc1svHTLTIGi vMZRV/prW7Y34K2Uy3tDa8H1IbvIuJwBZ2puWms7AxU/ijwjOaLkiZ1pLpFzqb0FOL09 lD/IW9rsn5CKlZPPl3/ko5dkLx7UFNA+j3As2fUfrwB4sQNOy8/3MxJg9yHNFjS7Iom5 2y8g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=lV4fp4W9l2XWFr5XdKTOnKToh1VBljI+oZ/zY0KMUEk=; b=mR2KDtw+tv3cyE9sLLIqsfXMKU1SLq15CsE3k/+8d6lbb8D6C9U/+pQ25cskZupf6S 7osj0hyniRqGcFOxbN0AyIWO9/cmiUezGXn4ygG6WbYxmUJD3pgIMycp+CZAF5hTnSDs Rapa3+domg1rJUF7m3+aXAexzxPIaqtKyti0L0GN/DLnCzQkf3SyZ+yENujUIMsB3AOX ZSllCTt5yvWHtC3JPWh9XbQlL2CvxaLWdTOVZbWfmuS3zDYbjISv/x8tvxXc5BatJ+iN yxBoPcNZGMzrOuvN/H+h/Ni3AARIbMQBsSFt2vOWWAYsKxM4p1p6qhWtphseWy9PH7sX iemQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVSKa+GRwvfZoeT38Q0eQlFx7ZDqUv1H5INDsHzexTmDvZVHJjf ACaqzJmLaZ1GbHw6McPHE7K4/FtkFWaKHIkxrMgD7g==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzafihxoyfSgaiNJQ9Ko3ebRRU2QhDylWWZtVYuJXM2wm2SSn9PqYDGT3/n+4M6URz8rAsw6UHwJSeSXgMzxfg=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:119c:: with SMTP id uz28mr14065392ejb.115.1571499186710; Sat, 19 Oct 2019 08:33:06 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <MN2PR13MB35820D0A6A5E73CBB5D9DD129A6C0@MN2PR13MB3582.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR13MB35820D0A6A5E73CBB5D9DD129A6C0@MN2PR13MB3582.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
From: Tom Herbert <tom@quantonium.net>
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2019 08:32:55 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPDqMeqANRZPxEswcp+=TdwgGQztgr3YS8bHH_wW4Ftfqj8YyQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Haoyu Song <haoyu.song@futurewei.com>
Cc: "draft-fz-6man-ipv6-alt-mark@ietf.org" <draft-fz-6man-ipv6-alt-mark@ietf.org>, "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>, IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/1_TNGDxGnl8OfgppreDmQdzLVOI>
Subject: Re: [ippm] Mail regarding draft-fz-6man-ipv6-alt-mark
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group <ippm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ippm/>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2019 15:33:12 -0000

On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 1:30 AM Haoyu Song <haoyu.song@futurewei.com> wrote:
>
> I just read this draft and I think it’s an implementation of the draft [I-D.zhou-ippm-enhanced-alternate-marking], which discusses the method of encapsulating the enhanced alternate marking header in IPv6. I have several comments.
>
>
>
> It doesn’t cover the encapsulation on SRv6 yet and I think a solution for SRv6 would be more useful.

SRv6 _is_ a subset IPv6. It is one type of routing header. Like any
other use case of IPv6, HBH and destination options are useable when
SRv6 header is present. Because SRv6 is a routing header destination
options before the routing header are processed by each destination in
the route list.

> More deployment consideration discussion should be given when it’s encapsulated in HBH EH

In what regard?

> The document mentioned two PBT modes discussed in [I-D.song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry]. Since the PBT-I variation has been merged in another draft [I-D.ioamteam-ippm-ioam-direct-export], this draft may need to be updated accordingly.
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> Haoyu
>
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> ippm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email