IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu> Thu, 12 September 2019 00:31 UTC

Return-Path: <ghanwani@gmail.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 D44B3120026; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 17:31:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.921
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.921 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.026, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 GVamxMIWbuSI; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 17:31:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vs1-f46.google.com (mail-vs1-f46.google.com [209.85.217.46]) (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 9A8B012001A; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 17:31:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vs1-f46.google.com with SMTP id b123so15024057vsb.5; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 17:31:05 -0700 (PDT)
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; bh=TVKRZADbqxnlM7LvVkdU77fpkQdNdPHUSyg2A/9XOfE=; b=AHBZSeg1QMQxVG4U8IqkWsC3RNwE96VKyRDg854PT+l5JssDBMkqADemZf/qZlDp0L JCDejgfGrl4oyhxNeei9RtzYugBd/E4Z/0RWkVoTLh253qP7VibIueM7a4TYh0TvuPri sLOHgh4PXFTdMPwPYhxFw7i4XRpIyZcaMoURyY8NKogVaHzu5lF+9HstSRThLMGvT/RZ /mMBYLtVOiBmvW3/Y1GTsSBklhymx99HnRRIBoXYqkEg/xX4BjWhJPAJ8wGmOWVD00bG WGngtK1OO5ZuSnSKfuQNP3PO+cWNL+S7vNFv38BCFCUV6gbfNOBrUfNyvxQ/LSsRq0m+ hPSA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUripybfjHlImIaTRGdsYfgWXqVV4z4vvPA0xe5FlQGjeAIMio6 uHm0hrs/NH1wtmzSdkJ0HMHNmfK54Dls+yXiCps=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxK79pEGjSizkq4se9oGH/ZXk5vJVSa1AA8bMkFqYtPcjEGT0+AtirNvaoOscZ7yIz70VXNtqnCE0ilL6YA1PU=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:2b86:: with SMTP id r128mr7755250vsr.119.1568248264699; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 17:31:04 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <EF8A9ED8-171F-42E4-9E69-82EB25F5D294@apple.com>
In-Reply-To: <EF8A9ED8-171F-42E4-9E69-82EB25F5D294@apple.com>
From: Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2019 17:30:53 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+-tSzwFBLdFgm=Veb9JpK3Up8BgJp=sW24RdvYX5v3F0Z13KA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tommy Pauly <tpauly=40apple.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>, draft-ioametal-ippm-6man-ioam-ipv6-options@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000bcb8420592504007"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/Yx-fQDo5v52Od1emQvcK-8m_FAg>
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 00:31:08 -0000

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> 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://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
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email