IETF Logo Mail Archive

[ippm] draft-song-ippm-ioam-ipv6-support

Thomas.Graf@swisscom.com Tue, 19 March 2024 03:22 UTC

Return-Path: <Thomas.Graf@swisscom.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 0BE99C14F69E for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Mar 2024 20:22:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.406
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.406 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=swisscom.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GzU5xa514ihf for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Mar 2024 20:22:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.swisscom.com (mailout110.swisscom.com [138.188.166.110]) (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 07563C14F6B0 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Mar 2024 20:21:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail.swisscom.com; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 04:21:04 +0100
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=swisscom.com; s=iscm; t=1710818464; bh=qcRcENZ+7ROsYO5gll6TOWY36/UwoOgUZUAWSxblwag=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date; b=WtKNiFUJXKL6UjfFGnz5CAtTz/cLvpqwOPRZN89FzuZhio1T2v1T41c9BsMxC1tQR ulNSOJamXPRNmcMSby/DmnDk5Sudj4S2+Gw5eYrYYy6YjxCjF/pgcu0Vv+nzukqWPr xc15jaU/8UiyXF74xhD/lkYb8mYaNL1Rt6g2jucAtOEpHf0OHGnBcFVzLE4kkw6B8e qDIEF4BNxhMg9gNTbmwjb9kko91SSERU5FttS+wqZNu3oSKBxVruF0RZX7ecTU7Raa sSRU4F35hGwMRaC/KGchewBPRgpf10139pBrFN877EB5Vl7eFWaOSpcT5oKbXpHIkW 2O328Y3V8pOEQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"; boundary="----=_Part_2142147_1235051524.1710818463751"
X-Mailer: Totemo_TrustMail_(Notification)
From: Thomas.Graf@swisscom.com
To: ippm@ietf.org, haoyu.song@futurewei.com
Thread-Topic: draft-song-ippm-ioam-ipv6-support
Thread-Index: Adp5lQm7eTV7uLGMS3GgdKmBvwjUbg==
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 03:21:01 +0000
Message-ID: <35e40a993c1e44aa9c89ec5482405bce@swisscom.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, de-CH
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
msip_labels: MSIP_Label_2e1fccfb-80ca-4fe1-a574-1516544edb53_ActionId=580847a7-3b13-4366-9d7d-ad6990450bd9; MSIP_Label_2e1fccfb-80ca-4fe1-a574-1516544edb53_ContentBits=0; MSIP_Label_2e1fccfb-80ca-4fe1-a574-1516544edb53_Enabled=true; MSIP_Label_2e1fccfb-80ca-4fe1-a574-1516544edb53_Method=Standard; MSIP_Label_2e1fccfb-80ca-4fe1-a574-1516544edb53_Name=C2 Internal; MSIP_Label_2e1fccfb-80ca-4fe1-a574-1516544edb53_SetDate=2024-03-19T00:33:15Z; MSIP_Label_2e1fccfb-80ca-4fe1-a574-1516544edb53_SiteId=364e5b87-c1c7-420d-9bee-c35d19b557a1;
x-originating-ip: [138.188.161.184]
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Trustmail: processed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/fbHWLtxr503w1_cTojqYXDCKtpw>
Subject: [ippm] draft-song-ippm-ioam-ipv6-support
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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 Mar 2024 03:22:06 -0000

Dear Haoyu, Dear IPPM

Thank you very much for your presentation at IPPM.

I like that you listed the possible proposals make IOAM trace option type more applicable when additional IPv6 extension headers such as Segment Routing header is being used.

I like on one hand to call out to network vendors to describe which suggested options can be potentially supported in their hardware/software implementations.

Second, as the co-author of https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ahuang-ippm-dex-timestamp-ext, extending IOAM DEX with a timestamp to facilitate on-path delay measurement in IPFIX as described in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry, I would appreciate that the working group make a clear statement wherever they intend to make all the features on IOAM trace option type available on IOAM DEX as well or not. A good starting point might be to revisit the following conversation: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/YbPlODR342z-NM0nulySYS8S_P4/ as there were concerns on the available bit field space.

Best wishes
Thomas

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email