Re: [ippm] Vote at IPPM session

[<[e-mail]>]

Hi Al,

IOAM parameters are not the same as private address space. Routers operate IP addresses and an access list doesn't require detection of a type of parameter which isn't supported. The access list controls whether values of a known parameter are ok. IOAM requires detection of an unknown type of parameter at a domain boundary. A behavior often requested in that case is transfer, not discard. 
An interconnection router likely operates an access list to protect the own domain, but interconnection routers are no firewalls (be liberal in what you accept....).

There are two scenarios which may worry:

- IOAM-domain passes traffic to non-IOAM domain 
  or IOAM domain respectively and IOAM parameters 
  may still be present.

- IOAM-domain passes traffic to non-IOAM domain 
  which passes packets containing IOAM unmodified 
  to another IOAM domain.

To me, the latter is the less desirable one. 

Regards, Rüdiger


> is a non-iOAM network operator able to detect standard ipv6 packets 
> with iOAM extensions, if the receiving operators equipment is 
> configured to support standard ipv6 protocol only? The pre-condition 
> here is "non-iOAM domain" at the receiving side. My point is, if a 
> domain isn't interested in supporting the iOAM extensions, is it 
> obliged to operate iOAM aware equipment to detect undesired traffic at network boundaries?


[ACM]
No, an operator can let the traffic flow if they want.
However, if operators find that their network is affected by traffic with iOAM data from another domain, they would be justified to discard that traffic (as long as there is a clear domain limit expressed to iOAM protocol designers of the future, as Frank has suggested).

[ACM]
This is the same ability afforded operators by declaring BMWG address space for isolated testing-only, or the various private network address spaces. Plenty of Net10 traffic escapes, and operators are not obliged to drop it, but they certainly can.