IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Giuseppe Fioccola <giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com> Fri, 18 October 2019 09:49 UTC

Return-Path: <giuseppe.fioccola@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 27F52120850; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 02:49:10 -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=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 QmI72mgNIeAo; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 02:49:07 -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 7B64E12008C; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 02:49:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from LHREML711-CAH.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id AE264C39DC8CE341673F; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 10:49:05 +0100 (IST)
Received: from fraeml720-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.16) by LHREML711-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.34) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 10:49:05 +0100
Received: from fraeml714-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.33) by fraeml720-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.16) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1713.5; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 11:49:04 +0200
Received: from fraeml714-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.206.15.33]) by fraeml714-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.206.15.33]) with mapi id 15.01.1713.004; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 11:49:04 +0200
From: Giuseppe Fioccola <giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com>
To: Haoyu Song <haoyu.song@futurewei.com>, "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>
Thread-Topic: Mail regarding draft-fz-6man-ipv6-alt-mark
Thread-Index: AdWFiuts9lClw3kCQaWaKSoqvpT0FwADBtLQ
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2019 09:49:04 +0000
Message-ID: <bd167b0aeb9f42efa385a7d29ff5e92e@huawei.com>
References: <MN2PR13MB35820D0A6A5E73CBB5D9DD129A6C0@MN2PR13MB3582.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR13MB35820D0A6A5E73CBB5D9DD129A6C0@MN2PR13MB3582.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.204.62.186]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_bd167b0aeb9f42efa385a7d29ff5e92ehuaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/Qtd3nzlI9KF0PIfLJ49GljmAKgw>
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: Fri, 18 Oct 2019 09:49:10 -0000

Hi Haoyu,
Thanks a lot for reading the draft and for sharing your comments.
Please find my answers inline tagged as [GF].

Best Regards,

Giuseppe

From: Haoyu Song [mailto:haoyu.song@futurewei.com]
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2019 10:30 AM
To: draft-fz-6man-ipv6-alt-mark@ietf.org; ipv6@ietf.org; IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>
Subject: Mail regarding draft-fz-6man-ipv6-alt-mark

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.


  1.  It doesn't cover the encapsulation on SRv6 yet and I think a solution for SRv6 would be more useful.

[GF]: The draft aims to be general for IPv6 data plane and we will include a new section on SRv6 in the next revision.


  1.  More deployment consideration discussion should be given when it's encapsulated in HBH EH
[GF]: Regarding HBH EH, if we consider its real deployment, it is sometimes dropped by legacy devices and not so used by intermediate nodes. DOH is preferred.
SRH can also be a good choice from this point of view. The intermediated nodes that are not in the SID list can consider the SRH as a green field, they cannot support and bypass or support and dig into the SRH TLV.


  1.  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.

[GF]: Sure, we will update and change the reference regarding PBT-I from draft-song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry to draft-ioamteam-ippm-ioam-direct-export.


Thanks!

Haoyu

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email