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

<> Mon, 16 September 2019 06:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4ADD312080B; Sun, 15 Sep 2019 23:53:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.198
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id x6ql6TXZFx_t; Sun, 15 Sep 2019 23:52:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5BC9D120048; Sun, 15 Sep 2019 23:52:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown []) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id 54691EEE5B7A9E3E6AFB; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 14:52:55 +0800 (CST)
Received: from ([]) by with SMTP id x8G6qhlL037268; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 14:52:43 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from
Received: from mapi (njxapp02[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid201; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 14:52:42 +0800 (CST)
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2019 14:52:42 +0800 (CST)
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afa5d7f313a128ed1b2
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: x8G6qhlL037268
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [ippm] =?utf-8?q?Adoption_call_fordraft-ioametal-ippm-6man-ioam-?= =?utf-8?q?ipv6-options?=
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: Mon, 16 Sep 2019 06:53:01 -0000

Hi all,

According to draft-ali-spring-ioam-srv6-01, IOAM Data Field would be carried in SRH TLV with SRv6.

But my further question is, why do we need to define different IOAM Data encapsulation for IPv6 and SRv6? In other words, what's the problem if the IOAM encapsulation specified in draft-ioametal-ippm-6man-ioam-ipv6-options-02 is used for SRv6 too?

Best Regards,

Xiao Min


发件人:AnoopGhanwani <>
收件人:Tommy Pauly <>rg>;
抄送人 <>;IETF IPPM WG <>rg>;
日 期 :2019年09月12日 08:32
主 题 :Re: [ippm] Adoption call fordraft-ioametal-ippm-6man-ioam-ipv6-options

ippm mailing list

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?


On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 9:11 AM Tommy Pauly <> 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:

Please reply to this email by Wednesday, September 25, with your input on whether or not the WG should adopt this document.

Tommy (as IPPM co-chair)
ippm mailing list