IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-ioametal-ippm-6man-ioam-ipv6-options

Lizhenbin <lizhenbin@huawei.com> Thu, 12 September 2019 01:14 UTC

Return-Path: <lizhenbin@huawei.com>
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 F280D120C42; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 18:14:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 JINrt7Zy8xet; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 18:14:48 -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 EEE4D120C33; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 18:14:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml709-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id B6C43CBF802BB9AEFADB; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 02:14:45 +0100 (IST)
Received: from DGGEMM406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.20.214) by lhreml709-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.32) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 02:14:44 +0100
Received: from DGGEMM532-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.7.237]) by DGGEMM406-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.3.20.214]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 09:14:40 +0800
From: Lizhenbin <lizhenbin@huawei.com>
To: Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>, Tommy Pauly <tpauly=40apple.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
CC: "draft-ioametal-ippm-6man-ioam-ipv6-options@ietf.org" <draft-ioametal-ippm-6man-ioam-ipv6-options@ietf.org>, IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>, IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-ioametal-ippm-6man-ioam-ipv6-options
Thread-Index: AQHVaLuT8Q+TtD741k+LIbg+qusvtacmqxeAgACQn7A=
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2019 01:14:40 +0000
Message-ID: <5A5B4DE12C0DAC44AF501CD9A2B01A8D934AD23E@DGGEMM532-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <EF8A9ED8-171F-42E4-9E69-82EB25F5D294@apple.com> <CA+-tSzwFBLdFgm=Veb9JpK3Up8BgJp=sW24RdvYX5v3F0Z13KA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+-tSzwFBLdFgm=Veb9JpK3Up8BgJp=sW24RdvYX5v3F0Z13KA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.206.84]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_5A5B4DE12C0DAC44AF501CD9A2B01A8D934AD23EDGGEMM532MBXchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/3ZxS5Zt3U-jSIPksKVxXhrlQO6o>
Subject: Re: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-ioametal-ippm-6man-ioam-ipv6-options
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: Thu, 12 Sep 2019 01:14:51 -0000

Agree very much. We also proposed the challenges and the optimization considering when IOAM and SRH are used together in the following draft.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-6man-ipv6-sfc-ifit/

That is the reason why we do not think the solution proposed by draft-ioametal-ippm-6man-ioam-ipv6-options is reasonable.

In order for better understanding and discussion, 6MAN WG is copied.


Best Regards,
Zhenbin (Robin)





From: ippm [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Anoop Ghanwani
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2019 8:31 AM
To: Tommy Pauly <tpauly=40apple.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ioametal-ippm-6man-ioam-ipv6-options@ietf.org; IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [ippm] Adoption call for draft-ioametal-ippm-6man-ioam-ipv6-options


How would the headers look when IOAM is used in conjunction with IPv6 segment routing?  Does the IOAM header and metadata precede or follow the segment routing header?

Thanks,
Anoop

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 9:11 AM Tommy Pauly <tpauly=40apple.com@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:40apple.com@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote:
Hello IPPM,

This email starts a working group adoption call for draft-ioametal-ippm-6man-ioam-ipv6-options. This document defines the IPv6 option encapsulation for IOAM data. This document was discussed with the 6man WG, which advised that the work be done in ippm, with review by 6man.

The documents are available here:

https://datatracker.ietf..org/doc/draft-ioametal-ippm-6man-ioam-ipv6-options/<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ioametal-ippm-6man-ioam-ipv6-options/>
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ioametal-ippm-6man-ioam-ipv6-options-02

Please reply to this email by Wednesday, September 25, with your input on whether or not the WG should adopt this document.

Best,
Tommy (as IPPM co-chair)
_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@ietf.org<mailto:ippm@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email