Re: [ippm] Call for adoption: draft-xiao-ippm-ioam-conf-state Thu, 19 November 2020 05:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 975263A0E03; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 21:49:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.894
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.894 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_NONELEMENT_30_40=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lilJcHHW6Xtg; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 21:49:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2EDEC3A0E04; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 21:49:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (unknown []) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id 07E5C2624709226E243B; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 13:49:54 +0800 (CST)
Received: from ([]) by with SMTP id 0AJ5nkY0046663; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 13:49:46 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from
Received: from mapi (njxapp04[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid201; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 13:49:46 +0800 (CST)
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2020 13:49:46 +0800 (CST)
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afc5fb6077af0ea0eaa
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: <>
To: <>
Cc: <>, <>, <>, <>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: 0AJ5nkY0046663
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [ippm] =?utf-8?q?Call_for_adoption=3A_draft-xiao-ippm-ioam-conf-?= =?utf-8?q?state?=
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2020 05:50:00 -0000

Hi Cheng,

We co-authors have discussed the example you provided, and we agree that this is a valid concern that needs to be addressed.

As what's been documented in draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options-04, leaking of IOAM-over-IPv6 packets outside the IOAM domain may happen in the case of device misconfiguration or device failure. It's similar here, leaking of  IOAM-Capabilities-over-ICMPv6 packets outside the IOAM domain may happen, but in my view IOAM-Capabilities-over-ICMPv6 packets are much less sensitive than IOAM-over-IPv6 packets, and the operator can add authentication to ICMPv6 packets if needed, so it's explicitly not a blocking issue.

The Security Consideration section of this draft will be enhanced in the next revision.

Thanks for your good comments.

Best Regards,

Xiao Min


日 期 :2020年11月18日 17:01
主 题 :RE: Re:[ippm] Call for adoption: draft-xiao-ippm-ioam-conf-state

Hi Min,


Thanks for your reply.


Simple example, Domain A is an IOAM domain, Domain B is another IOAM domain. Logically, the IOAM capabilities info of nodes in domain B MUST NOT be leaked out
 side the domain, therefore, the node 1 in domain A should not get the info of nodes in domain B.


In your solution, I guess we can use the ICMPv6 to request the capabilities info within the IOAM domain or outside the domain, if I understand it correctly.

Nothing to stop anyone to get the IOAM capability info of any node from any corner in the world. Right?


The solution of preventing information leaking needs to be considered. That is my concern.


IGP/BGP/BGP-LS solution may have other issues like you mentioned, but they can be controlled within the trusted domain.

Also, I see many capabilities are advertised via these protocols.  But this is another topic.






From: []
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 3:57 PM
To: Chengli (Cheng Li) <>
Cc: Chengli (Cheng Li) <>om>;;;;
Subject: Re:[ippm] Call for adoption: draft-xiao-ippm-ioam-conf-state


Hi Cheng,


I don't really understand your concern.

ICMPv6 is a mature protocol mechanism, and IOAM function is limited in a trusted domain, then using ICMPv6 to discover IOAM capabilities wouldn't introduce any big challenge on security and privacy.

I don't think IGP is better than ICMPv6 in this case. Firstly, flooding IOAM capabilities throughout the IGP domain is too heavy and unnecessary in my view. Secondly, IGP domain and IOAM domain
 don't always have the same coverage, one example is that when the IOAM encapsulating node is a host IGP flooding doesn't work for it.


Best Regards,

Xiao Min



收件人:Chengli (Cheng Li);肖敏10093570;


日期:2020年11月17日 17:53

主题:RE: [ippm] Call for adoption: draft-xiao-ippm-ioam-conf-state

I meantI don’t think we can detect the (Non Routing ) capabilities of a node in another domain. Sorry for the typo.


From: ippm []On
 Behalf Of Chengli (Cheng Li)
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2020 4:09 PM
Subject: Re: [ippm] Call for adoption: draft-xiao-ippm-ioam-conf-state


Hi Min,


That is also my understanding. IOAM is limited in a trusted domain.


But ICMP can be used in the global Internet? I don’t think we can detect the capabilities of a node in another node. Privacy and security will be a big challenge.


So personally I prefer IGP/BGP/BGP-LS or NETCONF/YANG way.





Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2020 3:52 PM
To: Chengli (Cheng Li) <>
Subject: Re:[ippm] Call for adoption: draft-xiao-ippm-ioam-conf-state


Hello Cheng,


I noticed that Frank has submitted an In-situ OAM deployment draft within OPSAWG, in section 3 of that draft it says:


IOAM is a network domain specific feature, with "network domain"   being a set of network devices or entities within a single   administration.  IOAM is not targeted for a deployment on the global   Internet.  The part of the network which employs IOAM is referred to   as the "IOAM-Domain"."

To my understanding, the IOAM data is collected only within a trusted domain, of course, Frank can correct me if I'm wrong.

For your convenience, the link for this quoted draft is provided as below.


Best Regards,

Xiao Min



收件人:Frank Brockners (fbrockne);Tommy Pauly;IETF IPPM WG (;

抄送人:IPPM Chairs;


主题:Re: [ippm] Call for adoption: draft-xiao-ippm-ioam-conf-state

ippm mailing list

I have one simple question like I mentioned in the meeting: Is it secure to discover the non-routing capabilities info from the data plane?


For instance, a packet may travel several network domains, and the trusted scope is only within each domain. When we use ICMP Ping, we can get the non-routing
 info from other domains. Is it OK to do it?  I think we should consider more about security and privacy.


Furthermore, can we collect the IOAM data in multiple domain scenarios? Or only within a trusted domain?











From: ippm []On Behalf OfFrank Brockners (fbrockne)
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2020 3:13 PM
To: Tommy Pauly <>rg>; IETF IPPM WG ( <>
Cc: IPPM Chairs <>
Subject: Re: [ippm] Call for adoption: draft-xiao-ippm-ioam-conf-state


Hello IPPM,


per what I mentioned during the IPPM WG meeting today, I don’t think we should adopt the document before we have a couple of key questions resolved:


* Why can’t we use Netconf/YANG (with the existing capabilities discovery process – a la RFC 6241) to retrieve the IOAM capabilities of IOAM nodes? E.g. the encapsulating node (as
 a NC client) could retrieve the IOAM capabilities from other IOAM nodes  (acting as a NC server). Plus there is already a YANG model in flight for IOAM (draft-zhou-ippm-ioam-yang-08). At a minimum I would have expected that the draft discusses why NC/YANG
 is not suitable for the scenario that the authors have in mind. The slides (
 that were presented in the IPPM WG meeting today, mention “Changed from “IOAM Configuration Data” to “Enabled IOAM Capabilities” since the former is too associated with NETCONF/YANG.” IMHO we need a bit more than just wordsmithing.


* While the draft uses IOAM capabilities discovery as the use-case, in more general terms, it proposes to add management/ops capabilities to echo-request/reply protocols like ICMP,
 which is a much broader topic. The TLV structures which are proposed to be added to echo-requests and echo-replies could obviously be leveraged for other use-cases. Does the work really fit the scope of the IPPM WG?


Thanks, Frank


From: ippm <>On Behalf OfTommy Pauly
Sent: Freitag, 30. Oktober 2020 19:46
Cc: IPPM Chairs <>
Subject: [ippm] Call for adoption: draft-xiao-ippm-ioam-conf-state


Hello IPPM,

This email starts a Working Group call for adoption for draft-xiao-ippm-ioam-conf-state. This document has been presented several times and discussed within the working group in the context of our overall IOAM work.

The document can be found here:

Please provide your feedback on these document, and state whether or not you believe the IPPM WG should adopt this work by replying to this email. Please provide your feedback by the start of the IETF 109 meeting week, on Monday, November 16.

Tommy & Ian