Re: [ippm] Questions about draft-xiao-ippm-ioam-conf-state

Hi Min and Tommy,

Thank you. Significant information.

Yali

From: Tommy Pauly [mailto:tpauly@apple.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2020 10:49 AM
To: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn; wangyali <wangyali11@huawei.com>
Cc: IETF IPPM WG (ippm@ietf.org) <ippm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [ippm] Questions about draft-xiao-ippm-ioam-conf-state

To be clear regarding IPv4, the guidance in previous meetings has been that a standard IPv4 extension is almost certainly not something that would progress as a standard. I would suggest not basing work on the presence of such an IPv4 extension.

Best,
Tommy

On May 27, 2020, at 2:21 AM, xiao.min2@zte.com.cn<mailto:xiao.min2@zte.com.cn> wrote:

Hi Yali,

This draft is a supportive document to IOAM encapsulations, so I believe it's too early to consider concrete ICMPv4 extensions, before there is rough consensus on IOAM over IPv4 encapsulation.

Best Regards,
Xiao Min
原始邮件
发件人：wangyali <wangyali11@huawei.com<mailto:wangyali11@huawei.com>>
收件人：肖敏10093570;
抄送人：ippm@ietf.org<mailto:ippm@ietf.org> <ippm@ietf.org<mailto:ippm@ietf.org>>;
日 期 ：2020年05月27日 10:11
主 题 ：RE: Re:[ippm] Questions about draft-xiao-ippm-ioam-conf-state
Hi Min,

Thanks for your reply. Please see inline [Yali].

Best regards,
Yali

From: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn<mailto:xiao.min2@zte.com.cn> [mailto:xiao.min2@zte.com.cn]
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2020 4:58 PM
To: wangyali <wangyali11@huawei.com<mailto:wangyali11@huawei.com>>
Cc: ippm@ietf.org<mailto:ippm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re:[ippm] Questions about draft-xiao-ippm-ioam-conf-state

Hi Yali,

Many thanks for your review and questions.
Please see my inline reply with <XM>.

Best Regards,
Xiao Min
原始邮件
发件人：wangyali <wangyali11@huawei.com<mailto:wangyali11@huawei.com>>
收件人：ippm@ietf.org<mailto:ippm@ietf.org> <ippm@ietf.org<mailto:ippm@ietf.org>>;
日期：2020年05月24日 19:50
主题：[ippm] Questions about draft-xiao-ippm-ioam-conf-state
_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@ietf.org<mailto:ippm@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
Hi authors,

This is Yali. This is an interesting work. I have following two questions.

First, is the list of Namespace-IDs the subset or all of Namespaces which the IOAM encapsulating node belongs to? If it is, I suggest adding some words to illustrate this.
<XM>  Yes, you're correct. I'll make it more clear in the next revision.
 [Yali] OK. Thanks.
Second, could this extension to the echo request/reply mechanisms also be used in ICMP defined for IPv4?
<XM>  In theory the mechanism described in this draft can also apply to ICMPv4, whereas I believe ICMPv4 needs to be taken into account only after the IOAM over IPv4 is defined. Currently the IOAM over IPv6 has been adopted in IPPM WG as draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options, if you're interested, we can work together on ICMPv6 first.
 [Yali] IOAM over IPv6 is important. While considering a scenario that IOAM applied in the legacy IPv4 network, I think the problem of echo request/reply IOAM node capabilities also needs to be taken account. But it may be discussed in another draft later.
In my opinion, as the Information Request and Reply Type=15 and Type=16 have been obsolete [RFC6918], so it could be used as the IOAM Capability echo request/reply messages to acquire the enabled IOAM capabilities.
 [Yali] Do you think this is a way to request/reply IOAM capabilities?
Thanks,
Yali

_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@ietf.org<mailto:ippm@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm