Re: [ippm] IOAM Direct Exporting Open Issue
"Frank Brockners (fbrockne)" <fbrockne@cisco.com> Wed, 14 October 2020 06:32 UTC
Return-Path: <fbrockne@cisco.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 DB4503A13B1; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 23:32:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=Jtsz+Y2h; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=PXcubvQp
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 W0k2wgR0eZo2; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 23:32:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-3.cisco.com (alln-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.142.90]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B39603A13B0; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 23:32:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=10678; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1602657174; x=1603866774; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=f4mYTNYdoY0Df/0flSPyJRNGq6JtFH0gFoX5st0lC+E=; b=Jtsz+Y2heADu+RxehQ92kg38g2Wthx/Ij8PjzwdVf2L8QUILgebp7Tum AuqF8p+qke5gH3okWh9n+2YpPcMAuJXacIm9aHzbStrTTIOFodzR2iFJs uVzBuA+jUpP5AzpyMXKWzWJ8AbaoV97sU2qL+hNY0LEWgg92Jse857v3j w=;
X-IPAS-Result: A0A6BgBWmoZf/4MNJK1gHAEBAQEBAQcBARIBAQQEAQFAgU+BUikoB3BZLywKhDODRgONUYECiQ+OaoFCgREDVQsBAQENAQEjCgIEAQGBbIJeAheBawIlOBMCAwEBAQMCAwEBAQEFAQEBAgEGBG2FXAyFcgEBAQMBEhERDAEBLAsBCwQCAQgOAgEDAQEBAQICJgICAh8RFQgIAgQBDQUIGoJ/BAKCSwMOIAEOnTECgTmIYXaBMoMBAQEFhRADCguCEAMGgQ4qgnKDboEGgT6EEhuBQT+BEUOBOGA1PoIaQgQXgQwFAQwGASMVgwAzgi2QByAEEIJVPaNJUgqCaYkChluGA4UtgxWUIYoIkyaBe4tijz+DDAIEAgQFAg4BAQWBayMNWnBwFTuCaVAXAg2OHxESgQIBAoJJhTCBSYNddAIBNAIGAQkBAQMJfIsHgTQBgRABAQ
IronPort-PHdr: 9a23:+7bU6RQ1WiKxsB2lejF0WYMSFtpsv++ubAcI9poqja5Pea2//pPkeVbS/uhpkESQBNmJ4upcj+eQuKflCiQM4peE5XYFdpEEFxoIkt4fkAFoBsmZQVb6I/jnY21ffoxCWVZp8mv9PR1TH8DzNFTKunm/qzUVH0a3OQ98PO+gHInUgoy+3Pyz/JuGZQJOiXK9bLp+IQ/wox/Ws5wdgJBpLeA6zR6arw==
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.77,373,1596499200"; d="scan'208";a="554742349"
Received: from alln-core-1.cisco.com ([173.36.13.131]) by alln-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 14 Oct 2020 06:32:51 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-003.cisco.com (xch-rcd-003.cisco.com [173.37.102.13]) by alln-core-1.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 09E6WpB8028352 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 14 Oct 2020 06:32:51 GMT
Received: from xhs-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.210.228) by XCH-RCD-003.cisco.com (173.37.102.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 01:32:50 -0500
Received: from xhs-rtp-002.cisco.com (64.101.210.229) by xhs-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.210.228) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 02:32:49 -0400
Received: from NAM04-BN3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (64.101.32.56) by xhs-rtp-002.cisco.com (64.101.210.229) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 02:32:50 -0400
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=D797dDxKOQwsyRKOK1vRVsI1joB5BdNS/UpFOPmjG2QI4ekxxTXcn1TXSsdpPbGQwloN54JlDKxH8vEb1NCiLcEcmRGPW3m2fX+f7KNEZYmuB3GmRomG6AyD5ejmvMPHH3W9Adxij4HP2gRcZe01Uzl3JCXGRhF9AFRx1qOPwlxOJEIYpi2BLw8ZA89QxRfsn+xPp33Q9r8Wd0RUK9J/Aj7BomikjUKccRWvK3mXWWTHsM3cFmbXHmj0BI54Udd2EB3obwKWSZZUHCZs9nf29WPLfC7VTktZiTG5YHnLIacFOrv6iPWkgYNQjoD9hDPpJ14p18mhsXLGujDKqbJJjw==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=f4mYTNYdoY0Df/0flSPyJRNGq6JtFH0gFoX5st0lC+E=; b=LzLygevJbwcwvv2M+HoJyyz8VpepSONvwnPIf0D5k7ZOwnMzt762qtuAF18+ejMGMIlpjo/Ds/KBNHz82jCoBXnqu5p1k1jejVNEegesevMmRjre4m6IRGD4VDN9a5Q1lPrl9kiSfxJz26Lewh3HEUxk+2jWWCo5bh8KzPXrK6lRfP9aU7KSRSEmjnaBzptCBHUmgwlS8kxzP13UzO8Vib96s8Wraw+VQq/26u5WUMKUPdPyhd4bQ28qt2pgE6BGSz/BkK4W5TjxuQJPSYBSmevUbFJ/WGWZKG+P7Zqj6mbITAAuWFMLEGyVGzGvZDQfooFFgQruxLlK1givInHWbw==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=f4mYTNYdoY0Df/0flSPyJRNGq6JtFH0gFoX5st0lC+E=; b=PXcubvQp2h7jZo4MrvWrjMsu55BqH0jlnk4pMXJ/VhPizLw26QbROJ3jvuq9lcifHBJioff27Nz98d2MvJdJOKAyM9AblJq+LljHv7WV6yKXpSQe2/F2JN04zLjT8ateDXSpvhiMplorzD6asgQCBeEb68G4+F12ddXA68V+zJo=
Received: from BYAPR11MB2584.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:a02:c8::31) by BYAPR11MB2711.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:a02:c2::30) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3455.24; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 06:32:49 +0000
Received: from BYAPR11MB2584.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::546d:44a0:ffc2:ebe7]) by BYAPR11MB2584.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::546d:44a0:ffc2:ebe7%7]) with mapi id 15.20.3455.031; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 06:32:49 +0000
From: "Frank Brockners (fbrockne)" <fbrockne@cisco.com>
To: Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com>, Haoyu Song <haoyu.song@futurewei.com>
CC: Tal Mizrahi <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com>, IPPM Chairs <ippm-chairs@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export@ietf.org>, "IETF IPPM WG (ippm@ietf.org)" <ippm@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: IOAM Direct Exporting Open Issue
Thread-Index: AQHWi/Gd8KW1sQVySE+kGhpmOqIw3qlri0IAgBkLnMCAABEOgIAAFayAgBIPGgA=
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2020 06:32:48 +0000
Message-ID: <BYAPR11MB2584BB076D44E8F8B2D0C405DA050@BYAPR11MB2584.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <DM6PR13MB2762A3C2024A7CE1F4025F809A310@DM6PR13MB2762.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <4941A7B7-7147-48C6-8A05-1D1572DFACA2@apple.com>
In-Reply-To: <4941A7B7-7147-48C6-8A05-1D1572DFACA2@apple.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: apple.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;apple.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [173.38.220.59]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 0893521c-c6dd-4db9-152e-08d8700af867
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BYAPR11MB2711:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BYAPR11MB2711DFC622B43A13DEC56BA3DA050@BYAPR11MB2711.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: pSGeUgkfoWidYnIFvSUM/Ce6TX0fu8wLlNphusKSWG97gxxNtop9mDO5JK4moPWcJzql6JI0Tv5jArTfJb07I3kok2TIkOSVtg3QBrKUTMOCpON7yAHrnxVNoO4NQDi4jsMpdEdma32gUxbPZP2kwuhD5Vu42PrPqCQMcdraW+F/VkjiURFBZ4P0vLug2IfbiMmLabLU8zlwCUM9385HBimvN6GN0Zdi2Ut96QoIlJGvEyz/HBiJSb6QknNfpPNvYM9+hdhc6Cur5rsPbqZ1XgqYUh2YPVCJhjDt0ZNUQ5NlT3EdTv/hiyWNPMn4zm4Hv2z1Y7NR/ZtHt2gAyc+FehJF+DtPCdlgylc72VeUVwXSEGH/Kb612f0H3H9XAvUOHYEwGmVbt4/wigYM6oVouA==
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:BYAPR11MB2584.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFS:(346002)(366004)(39860400002)(136003)(376002)(396003)(478600001)(86362001)(53546011)(7696005)(6506007)(9686003)(110136005)(55016002)(26005)(4326008)(966005)(54906003)(71200400001)(186003)(45080400002)(316002)(83380400001)(76116006)(66946007)(66476007)(66556008)(64756008)(33656002)(2906002)(66446008)(8936002)(5660300002)(83080400001)(52536014)(8676002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: 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
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: BYAPR11MB2584.namprd11.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 0893521c-c6dd-4db9-152e-08d8700af867
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 14 Oct 2020 06:32:49.0495 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: 0zFH0X2QSsQLVKDJOvYuIPQoslYzIIQldFk5MmP+kj4KW8zDrkv99HA7qi44kOETA8vTfp4gMMNaA8BDTTnz5A==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BYAPR11MB2711
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.13, xch-rcd-003.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-1.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/PPFmPtKQtoB0gE5vB79now0B_R4>
Subject: Re: [ippm] IOAM Direct Exporting Open Issue
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: Wed, 14 Oct 2020 06:32:57 -0000
Cc'ing IPPM WG. IMHO it makes sense to tackle the question of how IOAM applies to L2 networks as a separate topic. Cheers, Frank > -----Original Message----- > From: Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com> > Sent: Freitag, 2. Oktober 2020 20:35 > To: Haoyu Song <haoyu.song@futurewei.com> > Cc: Frank Brockners (fbrockne) <fbrockne@cisco.com>; Tal Mizrahi > <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com>; IPPM Chairs <ippm-chairs@ietf.org>; draft-ietf- > ippm-ioam-direct-export@ietf.org > Subject: Re: IOAM Direct Exporting Open Issue > > If there are scenarios where the hop limit/TTL is not available, could those not > have a separate mechanism to define a hop limit? This DEX alone could remain > simple and without duplication for the L3 case, but not preventing combining > with another mechanism for L2? > > Tommy > > > On Oct 2, 2020, at 10:17 AM, Haoyu Song <haoyu.song@futurewei.com> > wrote: > > > > Hi Frank and Tommy, > > > > It's also clear that "Hop_count" is not semantically identical to "Hop_lim" (or > TTL) as specified in IOAM data. The most critical question is: what if Hop_lim is > not available at all (e.g., in L2 networks)? Then how can we get such > information? We need to add explanations in the draft how to handle such a > possibility, and how to get and interpret Hop_lim, if it exists. > > > > Best regards, > > Haoyu > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Frank Brockners (fbrockne) <fbrockne@cisco.com> > > Sent: Friday, October 2, 2020 9:31 AM > > To: Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com>; Tal Mizrahi > > <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com> > > Cc: IPPM Chairs <ippm-chairs@ietf.org>; > > draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: IOAM Direct Exporting Open Issue > > > > Hi Tommy, > > > > as we all agree, one guiding principle in standards is to avoid reimplementation > of an already available functionality. This principle helps implementors and avoid > a proliferation of different options to implement the same functionality. IMHO > we're presented with such a case here. > > > > DEX was originally designed to avoid recording/updating the IOAM related > metadata in the packet as the packet traverses the network, but instead have > every transited node create and immediately export the OAM data of interest. > Let's call this "Vanilla DEX". > > > > If we add "hop count recording", we create a "Hybrid DEX" mode, in that we > record and update a hop-count field in the packet *and* have every transited > node create and immediately export the OAM data of interest. The hop-count > recording in this "Hybrid DEX" mode would just be a re-implementation of a > capability which we already have if we combine "Vanilla DEX" with "IOAM > tracing". draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export-01 kind of states this in section 7 - > but IMHO we should make it really clear that we're talking about a re- > implementation of an already existing capability. > > > > Maybe this context could help us to come to a conclusion on this topic. > > > > Cheers, Frank > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com> > >> Sent: Mittwoch, 16. September 2020 19:48 > >> To: Tal Mizrahi <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com> > >> Cc: IPPM Chairs <ippm-chairs@ietf.org>; draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct- > >> export@ietf.org > >> Subject: Re: IOAM Direct Exporting Open Issue > >> > >> Hi Tal, > >> > >> We may need to take some time on our upcoming IETF 109 agenda to > >> dedicate to resolving this if we can’t get it done before then. > >> > >> To get a sense from the authors, for either option, is there someone > >> who can’t live with that outcome? I can see the trade offs either > >> way, and I do think we should prescribe only one method. The text > >> lists the pros and cons—how do they weigh against one another? > >> > >> Tommy > >> > >>> On Sep 15, 2020, at 11:21 PM, Tal Mizrahi > >>> <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> Dear Chairs, > >>> > >>> There were no responses to this email, probably since everyone who > >>> had comments about this open issue has already commented in the past. > >>> At this point we would like your help with proceeding to resolve this issue. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Tal. > >>> > >>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- > >>> From: Tal Mizrahi <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com> > >>> Date: Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 8:52 AM > >>> Subject: IOAM Direct Exporting Open Issue > >>> To: IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org> > >>> > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> There is an open issue in the DEX draft about whether to include an > >>> explicit Hop Count field in the DEX header, or to rely on the > >>> existing Hop_Lim/Node_ID data field. > >>> > >>> Section 7 of the draft presents the pros and cons of each of these > >>> alternatives. This issue has also been discussed on the mailing list > >>> a couple of times, and on the last few IPPM meetings. > >>> > >>> We would like to encourage non-authors to express their opinion > >>> about which approach should be taken: (1) use an explicit Hop Count > >>> field, or (2) rely on the existing Hop_Lim/Node_ID data field. > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> Tal. > >>> > >>> > >>> Here is a link to the draft: > >>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fda > >>> tatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export%2F& > >>> > ;data=02%7C01%7Chaoyu.song%40futurewei.com%7C2f840fbff5b34808bb3f08 > d > >>> > 866f0c247%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C6373725315 > 361 > >>> > 39070&sdata=zOeIUtzXzqkyb5D9pdc1UgUP%2Bnpjc0aB0AHU0Df8Y1E%3D > & > >>> ;reserved=0 > >>> > >>> Section 7 of the draft, which presents the two alternatives is > >>> quoted here for convenience. > >>> > >>> Hop Limit / Hop Count: in order to help correlate and order the > >>> exported packets, it is possible to include a 1-octet Hop Count > >>> field in the DEX header (presumably by claiming some space from > >>> the Flags field). Its value starts from 0 at the encapsulating > >>> node and is incremented by each IOAM transit node that supports > >>> the DEX option. The Hop Count field value is also included in the > >>> exported packet. An alternative approach is to use the Hop_Lim/ > >>> Node_ID data field; if the IOAM-Trace-Type > >>> [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data] has the Hop_Lim/Node_ID bit set, then > >>> exported packets include the Hop_Lim/Node_ID data field, which > >>> contains the TTL/Hop Limit value from a lower layer protocol. The > >>> main advantage of the Hop_Lim/Node_ID approach is that it provides > >>> information about the current hop count without requiring each > >>> transit node to modify the DEX option, thus simplifying the data > >>> plane functionality of Direct Exporting. The main advantage of > >>> the Hop Count approach is that it counts the number of IOAM- > >>> capable nodes without relying on the lower layer TTL, especially > >>> when the lower layer cannot prvide the accurate TTL information, > >>> e.g., Layer 2 Ethernet or hierarchical VPN. It also explicitly > >>> allows to detect a case where an IOAM-capable node fails to export > >>> packets. In order to facilitate the Hop Count approach it is > >>> possible to use a flag to indicate an optional Hop Count field, > >>> which enables to control the tradeoff. On one hand it addresses > >>> the use cases that the Hop_Lim/Node_ID cannot cover, and on the > >>> other hand it does not require transit switches to update the > >>> option if it is not supported or disabled. Further discussion is > >>> required about the tradeoff between the two alternatives.
- [ippm] IOAM Direct Exporting Open Issue Tal Mizrahi
- Re: [ippm] IOAM Direct Exporting Open Issue Frank Brockners (fbrockne)
- Re: [ippm] IOAM Direct Exporting Open Issue Barak Gafni
- Re: [ippm] IOAM Direct Exporting Open Issue MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
- Re: [ippm] IOAM Direct Exporting Open Issue Haoyu Song
- Re: [ippm] IOAM Direct Exporting Open Issue Haoyu Song
- Re: [ippm] IOAM Direct Exporting Open Issue Tommy Pauly
- Re: [ippm] IOAM Direct Exporting Open Issue Barak Gafni
- Re: [ippm] IOAM Direct Exporting Open Issue Barak Gafni
- Re: [ippm] IOAM Direct Exporting Open Issue Tal Mizrahi
- Re: [ippm] IOAM Direct Exporting Open Issue Tommy Pauly
- Re: [ippm] IOAM Direct Exporting Open Issue Haoyu Song
- Re: [ippm] IOAM Direct Exporting Open Issue Tal Mizrahi
- Re: [ippm] IOAM Direct Exporting Open Issue Frank Brockners (fbrockne)
- Re: [ippm] IOAM Direct Exporting Open Issue Haoyu Song