IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ippm] Comment on draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options-00

"Frank Brockners (fbrockne)" <fbrockne@cisco.com> Tue, 19 November 2019 03:47 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 6A2A5120044 for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 19:47:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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=KqT6u93Q; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=y6AwHTR+
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 YzBzXbcgmXOG for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 19:47:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 57BFF120255 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 19:47:43 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=8950; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1574135263; x=1575344863; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=4greiQgLoN+kjks/CMPO4Mp+1KM3R42p6EVj8IwpBPc=; b=KqT6u93Q0Wa5nXeawT4hJw1fLpAwsjBx5dY5i5Ga8tRPzZ76m1ADxeNQ uUAnEaVfP5ZrW7EI9MZVCWoOJkvBFN0rDN9Qan5ddnxQ1UqEYvHWn8GQc AT+pJm7FRCB76S8SwVwb0UQ41x9zcPJq7pVgdqK6DWXYW+f9D/lXJzqLu 4=;
IronPort-PHdr: 9a23:GYxzohXqNPrtfkLndjTX2+RqODfV8LGuZFwc94YnhrRSc6+q45XlOgnF6O5wiEPSA9yJ8OpK3uzRta2oGXcN55qMqjgjSNRNTFdE7KdehAk8GIiAAEz/IuTtank0Ft5FX1xj8lmwMFNeH4D1YFiB6nA=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BVAQDVZNNd/5pdJa1lGgEBAQEBAQEBAQMBAQEBEQEBAQICAQEBAYF+gRwvUAVsWCAECyqEKoNGA4p0ToIQkx6EYoJSA1QJAQEBDAEBJwYCAQGEQAIXggwkOBMCAwsBAQQBAQECAQUEbYU3DIVRAQEBAQMSEQoTAQEpDw8CAQgRBAEBHg0CAgIwHQgCBAESCBqDAYF5TQMuAQIMpWQCgTiIYHWBMoJ+AQEFgTQBg1AYghcDBoE2jBUYgUA/gRFGgkw+gmICAoFhK4JjMoIskBOFR5hTCoIqhxqOUJVVhDyOSIg4kVACBAIEBQIOAQEFgWkigVhwFYMnUBEUkRoMF4NQilN0CoEejTUBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.68,322,1569283200"; d="scan'208,217";a="665785224"
Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 19 Nov 2019 03:47:42 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-016.cisco.com (xch-rcd-016.cisco.com [173.37.102.26]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id xAJ3lfj1022794 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 19 Nov 2019 03:47:42 GMT
Received: from xhs-rtp-003.cisco.com (64.101.210.230) by XCH-RCD-016.cisco.com (173.37.102.26) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 21:47:41 -0600
Received: from xhs-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.227.246) by xhs-rtp-003.cisco.com (64.101.210.230) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 22:47:40 -0500
Received: from NAM01-BN3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (72.163.14.9) by xhs-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.227.246) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 21:47:40 -0600
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=gGOPjeYqpXn1zh0m7lMsb0tyeIqrKUSqTqwj6ni5PBJXVk/SBQ9KrTzaXwjG53jzqqS4Ek0YT9ITx51yj68alM4QdFTZiGX+52Aj2fbI+3yT8qr7iWUb0BHhfcWAdCVsoIZJQuqKMPbUv7Saczwi39hnhSDevO+rf4p7E1eayzBkr2fao1PRgi2MT8Ek2KvrAfQa4bNQGutn/BOwlFPthnejdrbt4CvGEQc80UcZBar9jgYItcONDlSNmvF1deSf5p5tuFLKuK4n+bFkyPPJik9QarA7Hd+L4/fvccuw4k5KIdEXggBLDuMsezwU68UgX4dERHQt+LSBVG6t4sY2Zg==
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=4greiQgLoN+kjks/CMPO4Mp+1KM3R42p6EVj8IwpBPc=; b=bAHVQPvp+GdtQFLKqVBmH7DQt62eHViFuVYliE63U1mlIgzxvubxrYbuyHnA7Ll+HtMGpKcPHbMtw2j6jxIX3EN5nqIc5rrUdGUpxrjWcCR5TCbTRIy201QHn51s4Dg0cX6DfVGbGvKZpPT8ZY8yp7byCArk8Wob5MmwZwiUprpWbTC6HIOua4q+QGM60znfwMDCSAh73b/dcRo5/7z6kmKGnvbSUbQOgJ+KPCs0pQZbMmXL2vzsFTJue43WJmT4F2d7w+kAK28xnSDCFSa1zzk8tHX5zeD9cTpdOTYL5MfXKc89MVYms4oAN/znhtbNuQHOD2+iF3nCfnEVxKxh3g==
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=4greiQgLoN+kjks/CMPO4Mp+1KM3R42p6EVj8IwpBPc=; b=y6AwHTR+R5LeZ/KFPf3NCHM9pLFOatCeYwVyUy4j+5QAd48mJ9Z0P+CUV0YlJJIby+/pzT2b0+RpauVoYHVfUPtCchpRtncReMqqR3FMPxedg0UjHXG6csfHHbCHdRalZJrZmb84TSO96MZNGAcscWkNG/zsQQ+OO4cs5aG6cC8=
Received: from BYAPR11MB2584.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (52.135.228.31) by BYAPR11MB2968.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (20.177.227.158) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2451.30; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 03:47:38 +0000
Received: from BYAPR11MB2584.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::854c:63ec:ff6f:7e8a]) by BYAPR11MB2584.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::854c:63ec:ff6f:7e8a%6]) with mapi id 15.20.2451.029; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 03:47:37 +0000
From: "Frank Brockners (fbrockne)" <fbrockne@cisco.com>
To: "xiao.min2@zte.com.cn" <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn>, "ippm@ietf.org" <ippm@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [ippm] Comment on draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options-00
Thread-Index: AQHVnc+mkUUodDJUYkqiPluxlzl7UaeR2DNA
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 03:47:37 +0000
Message-ID: <BYAPR11MB2584C26544D5CC6DEE766FC7DA4C0@BYAPR11MB2584.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <201911181318081812271@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <201911181318081812271@zte.com.cn>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=fbrockne@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [2001:420:c0c0:1001::9f]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: dd886e29-5ba2-4380-9003-08d76ca3386c
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BYAPR11MB2968:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BYAPR11MB29687B437AE0B056D9ACD932DA4C0@BYAPR11MB2968.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:4714;
x-forefront-prvs: 022649CC2C
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(4636009)(136003)(366004)(39860400002)(346002)(376002)(396003)(199004)(189003)(316002)(66946007)(9686003)(46003)(55016002)(99286004)(2906002)(66574012)(76176011)(54896002)(8936002)(71200400001)(71190400001)(110136005)(790700001)(6116002)(74316002)(86362001)(7696005)(33656002)(6436002)(6246003)(102836004)(446003)(52536014)(66476007)(966005)(5660300002)(8676002)(229853002)(11346002)(76116006)(25786009)(9326002)(66556008)(64756008)(14454004)(53546011)(6506007)(66446008)(486006)(186003)(256004)(476003)(6306002)(2501003)(236005)(606006)(81166006)(478600001)(81156014)(7736002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:BYAPR11MB2968; H:BYAPR11MB2584.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: R7thsBSUb2SmqDTKGPC7Vm3NKMq87/9EmQ8HC6OdTUwVI2M1/XQgiCaONMAIAbBF+ebVvmVC9R3XEPhoA/sSmvNySopRbK0No9Vn5hoqYLAH4WrU0ptIzR5QBLhjOol3s5JBtItxVJM7qJyJZsQHtJAO5xUlsnt9mXPf9qO/Z8WtfAZNG0Nqys4C8quA0iZjfoMK6oEloCr+bl2d4SW2LSVCa03cMPLtw5DZmt5D1coGFcDF5Il2n0xk2bByklEpcLnhcWKWUVdwK6D/eAgo92eHMQ8AngSqWfpdYXZJcY/BhDOOn0FrNA6I3U4PlJYZMQSROy3euMbYF5Ghuz+lLHKkiCC12thJv2fm17UdYMeCqBcwsDjbeGmUasPyWWjFUFPuOnqnUyQ54Cqav2mqXe4q4kbWmbBBe5OwA7i7nvfR7IDeHK893i9lOOf054Mc
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BYAPR11MB2584C26544D5CC6DEE766FC7DA4C0BYAPR11MB2584namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: dd886e29-5ba2-4380-9003-08d76ca3386c
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 19 Nov 2019 03:47:37.4684 (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: 0/THbbTN499NPFK0yPq7RmuldrJtfTK3OPDvhCc3NPk6twkW7ITUWRCCGNahKBMKgjX63dgCHhGB09BYfkZ1Uw==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BYAPR11MB2968
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.26, xch-rcd-016.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-3.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/ZZpP5bVVeIbS9Xm1AmFWK-nIcWA>
Subject: Re: [ippm] Comment on draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options-00
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: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 03:47:48 -0000

Hi Xiao,

thanks for following up. Apparently the behavior described in draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options-00 isn’t a bug – as we speculated in the IPPM WG meeting yesterday, but the desired behavior that we arrived at after WG discussions in 6man and with several IPv6 experts.  See https://github.com/inband-oam/ietf/commit/48175cf89de6369a4d01017ec80c07b34f57f17c#diff-803b63dbe26303f504708318e255d884 (“Don't forward an IOAM packet unless configured to do so.”)
This behavior for IPv6 is to ensure that packets with IOAM do not accidentally leak from a domain that employs IPv6.
This also means for IPv6, things are more constrained than what is stated in the more generic draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-08.

Cheers, Frank



From: ippm <ippm-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
Sent: Montag, 18. November 2019 13:18
To: ippm@ietf.org
Subject: [ippm] Comment on draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options-00


Hi Frank,



Repeat what I said on the mic this morning as below.



In section 3 of draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options-00 it says:

"Unless a particular interface is explicitly enabled (i.e. explicitly   configured) for IOAM, a router MUST drop packets which contain extension headers carrying IOAM data-fields."

But in section 4.4 of draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-08 it says:

"If not all nodes within a domain are IOAM capable, IOAM tracing information (i.e., node data, see below) will only be collected on those nodes which are IOAM capable.  Nodes which are not IOAM capable will forward the packet without any changes to the IOAM-Data-Fields."

It seems they're not in alignment.



Best Regards,

Xiao Min

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email