Re: [ippm] Review on draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-06

Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu> Thu, 22 August 2019 22:22 UTC

Return-Path: <ghanwani@gmail.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 6F6081200F4; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 15:22:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 mfCxdU5f_s7y; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 15:22:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vs1-f48.google.com (mail-vs1-f48.google.com [209.85.217.48]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 298271200A1; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 15:22:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vs1-f48.google.com with SMTP id y16so4966676vsc.3; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 15:22:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=foR46DiUajJIokwpLrsUjEfwvhHH5QBxjO35vrknCLE=; b=TCUhXFoSrtM3hZ/DeNO4KMyK2kD4xHHak5MQzYYC2+4dNaYTdGN3SFsGLhkqhSXPA5 6zOuXNSMjKyKT5N2zdu+UD3QA/rcXu4ukrLj+JN2ATy1oJLVGtEj98X5a02ZuHY7Eh7h DLFfmKSwAfn2W3hqQ5k7Ak+Q3Im604tjMblyTw3mPktqQ9r9JLm5ndKkXW6A2QLdPXsf BaFUaSpjOMNlryEvtsWjgomWnAISuHxZvT1rrirvuNxGcGaEz2cS1BHVsLgwEHAaX4q/ MCkSsCfGvLwyVngXkyjZDzNocJc+jM46JD0N0Vx77vfx3LtvDrSYuGs5nmhyr04btEwL WBqg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXYcDhH3MSVBcwWXOnZojeJ9f4sg8Ouk5qxfkmavS+wc2B7e1do 7hPB8Rb07AAMGQQyqkx0bZ/dyY+I3QfXdQfsQAY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyPU0LrUID//MSQnY8VU/CaryDbHiiV8bkDMKPcSo0jmUoqhxH++/OHFCvBYZN08eIau2ksaZrLM6n1z+stp14=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:b344:: with SMTP id b4mr894134vsm.228.1566512552087; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 15:22:32 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <B5A76AB5-AE39-4771-9472-38454CF52152@broadcom.com> <CAGn858RE4p8gez+b0=9PSsZQ=Y1uZANno5V7tqSo=cuqY7AJLA@mail.gmail.com> <BD32CF3D-C6F3-4CF6-A618-C41ED0C4D1CB@cisco.com> <CAGn858SLr4vix18=09gXgsN-VOspBL=qZ2-q6dWyF5b3ASgCYA@mail.gmail.com> <BYAPR11MB25845CFB28F096937486F8D7DAA50@BYAPR11MB2584.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CAGn858QOPgXb=-WgWhXETKgEw5v1soo=JsDB+LemOr7G6DKB1A@mail.gmail.com> <9FFC50F3-C5E6-4036-8A4D-29DCE2528B91@alibaba-inc.com> <CAPDqMepJsFPy3Gfh7MC2cJwoywK+YVxfyMw0wZtVyw79r8t6_g@mail.gmail.com> <3FDB1B26-B286-4F3A-ABB9-DACE051F0E5D@alibaba-inc.com> <CAPDqMert5S2SMBKCynLTcDQE86MAvgad_C28=DGjpmCbid3G3A@mail.gmail.com> <AM6PR05MB411883BE2DA6A0899DADA499B9A50@AM6PR05MB4118.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <AM6PR05MB411883BE2DA6A0899DADA499B9A50@AM6PR05MB4118.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
From: Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 15:22:16 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+-tSzwOu=se5w9PFJbc5znCdhbPgqr+ykBp+xj8YXHJADe03g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Barak Gafni <gbarak@mellanox.com>
Cc: Tom Herbert <tom@quantonium.net>, "OU, Heidi" <heidi.ou@alibaba-inc.com>, Hugh Holbrook <holbrook@arista.com>, "draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data@ietf.org>, Surendra Anubolu <surendra.anubolu@broadcom.com>, IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003415fb0590bc206a"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/pQZ5D7cWnVe97VOM3z9n7Knj2f4>
Subject: Re: [ippm] Review on draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-06
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: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 22:22:38 -0000

Hi Barak/Tom,

Using IP options would be cleaner but there are other issues that make it
undesirable.  Most existing silicon will either blindly
forward/discard/punt to CPU all packets with IP options.  If we pick the
forward option, then it opens up a hole that allows packets with any other
IP options through.  Additionally, when forwarding many will not parse
beyond the option header so things like ACLs and hashing for LAG/ECMP will
break.  Picking any of the other 2 options (discard/punt) means this
protocol is no longer backwards compatible.

I may be wrong, but I think it may be hard to convince the IETF to move
forward with a proposal that needs to extend IPv4 in any way, hence e.g.
segment routing is supported only with IPv6.

Thanks,
Anoop

On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 2:28 PM Barak Gafni <gbarak@mellanox.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> You may be interested to take a look on a draft that discusses the use of
> the IP options for IOAM:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gafni-ippm-ioam-ipv4-options-00
> I do agree that IP options is an area we should use for this application.
> The good thing about IP options is that the header architecture enable the
> implementations to easily go over the options without the need to be aware
> and parse them, as a backwards compatibility consideration.
>
> Thanks,
> Barak
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ippm <ippm-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Tom Herbert
> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 2:11 PM
> To: OU, Heidi <heidi.ou@alibaba-inc.com>
> Cc: draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data@ietf.org; IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>rg>;
> Hugh Holbrook <holbrook@arista.com>om>; Anoop Ghanwani <
> Anoop.Ghanwani@dell.com>gt;; Surendra Anubolu <surendra.anubolu@broadcom.com>
> Subject: Re: [ippm] Review on draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-06
>
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 1:51 PM OU, Heidi <heidi.ou@alibaba-inc.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Tom,
> >
> > Thanks for the reply. Anoop also gave some insight offline on the ASIC
> restriction.
> >
> > About adding  IOAM as an IP option, I thought it had been  proposed in
> >
> > https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftool
> > s.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-kumar-ippm-ifa-01%23page-10&amp;data=02%7C01
> > %7Cgbarak%40mellanox.com%7Ce4ccee89b9bc4e1274ce08d727455b2a%7Ca652971c
> > 7d2e4d9ba6a4d149256f461b%7C0%7C0%7C637021051167634230&amp;sdata=gt0iYj
> > 8NTD2UVgTVshJ011ndwG46tHRcEhXQ5NGvDAE%3D&amp;reserved=0
> > What prevent us from doing that?
>
> Yeah, IP options would be obstensibly be an obvious choice, but proper
> support in middleboxes is notoriously bad. Also, they're limited to forty
> bytes. In reality, I doubt no one is seriously considering use of new IPv4
> options. However, IPv6 extension headers are an active area of development
> (including the definition of IOAM options). I've written a draft to allow
> IPv4 to carry the same HBH extension headers in IPv4 to bridge the gap
> between v4 and v6.
>
> Tom
>
> >
> > From deployment point of view,  as long as the INT packet can go through
> the exact same path/queue as the  pre-encap'd packets, we are fine.
> >
> > Thanks
> > - Heidi
> >
> > On 2019/8/22, 12:41 PM, "Tom Herbert" <tom@quantonium.net> wrote:
> >
> >     On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 12:21 PM OU, Heidi <heidi.ou@alibaba-inc.com>
> wrote:
> >     >
> >     > Hi Frank,
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > I also have a question on the encapsulation: If you can get a new
> ethertype for IOAM, why not insert IOAM data directly after layer2 MAC?
> instead of adding a GRE header for IOAM.
> >     >
> >     Because, we need a packet format that is compatible with existing
> >     network devices. In light of that, GRE is more preferable than using
> >     the new Ethertype directly in an Ethernet frame. There will also be
> >     similar arguments made for using GRE/IP, and UDP encapsulation over
> >     IP, and there was even a proposal to somehow insert the IOAM data
> >     immediately after the TCP header and before the TCP data. All of
> these
> >     are attempts to use protocol headers that are thought to be most
> >     palatable to intermediate devices and maximize the chances of
> >     efficient delivery.
> >
> >     IMO, all of the aforementioned techniques have some problem or aren't
> >     clean (including the GRE solution). The best solution, and most
> >     architecturally correct and generic one, is an IOAM option in
> >     Hop-by-Hop extension headers.
> >
> >     Tom
> >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > Thanks
> >     >
> >     > Heidi
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > From: Vijay Rangarajan <vijayr@arista.com>
> >     > Date: Thursday, August 22, 2019 at 7:22 AM
> >     > To: "Frank Brockners (fbrockne)" <fbrockne@cisco.com>
> >     > Cc: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>om>, Jai Kumar
> <jai.kumar@broadcom.com>om>, "draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data@ietf.org" <
> draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data@ietf.org>gt;, IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>rg>, Hugh
> Holbrook <holbrook@arista.com>om>, Anoop Ghanwani <Anoop.Ghanwani@dell.com>om>,
> "OU, Heidi" <heidi.ou@alibaba-inc.com>om>, Surendra Anubolu <
> surendra.anubolu@broadcom.com>gt;, John Lemon <john.lemon@broadcom.com>
> >     > Subject: Re: [ippm] Review on draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-06
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > Hi Frank:
> >     >
> >     > Thanks, I knew I was missing something.
> >     >
> >     > So basically what you are saying is - let's say we have a UDP
> packet, we are just going to stick in the GRE header and IOAM Header and
> Metadata in-between the original IP and UDP headers?
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > So, the next protocol in the IOAM Header should indicate the L4
> protocol - i.e UDP/TCP?
> >     >
> >     > Looking at
> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-weis-ippm-ioam-eth%2F&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cgbarak%40mellanox.com%7Ce4ccee89b9bc4e1274ce08d727455b2a%7Ca652971c7d2e4d9ba6a4d149256f461b%7C0%7C0%7C637021051167634230&amp;sdata=PykE1LWuF5gfIvL3ZiS242rAKnh%2FEZ5PXjZrp6dQXy4%3D&amp;reserved=0p;reserved=0,
> it actually defines the "Next protocol" in the IOAM header to be an
> ethertype value?
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > Thanks,
> >     >
> >     > Vijay
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 6:22 PM Frank Brockners (fbrockne) <
> fbrockne@cisco.com> wrote:
> >     >
> >     > Hi Vijay,
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > note that you don’t necessarily need to “tunnel” – you can just
> use the GRE header to sequence-in IOAM.
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > Cheers, Frank
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > From: Vijay Rangarajan <vijayr@arista.com>
> >     > Sent: Donnerstag, 22. August 2019 05:31
> >     > To: Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) <cpignata@cisco.com>
> >     > Cc: Jai Kumar <jai.kumar@broadcom.com>om>;
> draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data@ietf.org; IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>rg>; Frank
> Brockners (fbrockne) <fbrockne@cisco.com>om>; Hugh Holbrook <
> holbrook@arista.com>gt;; Anoop Ghanwani <Anoop.Ghanwani@dell.com>om>; OU, Heidi
> <heidi.ou@alibaba-inc.com>om>; Surendra Anubolu <
> surendra.anubolu@broadcom.com>gt;; John Lemon <john.lemon@broadcom.com>
> >     > Subject: Re: [ippm] Review on draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-06
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > Thanks Carlos, for pointing me to the draft.
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > Based on my understanding of the two drafts I have the following
> questions and concerns:
> >     >
> >     > If I understand correctly, to deploy inband telemetry, we would
> need to construct GRE tunnels coinciding with the IOAM domain?
> >     > GRE typically requires configuration to provision the tunnels.
> Provisioning and managing these tunnels and keeping these updated as the
> network grows/shrinks could be a significant overhead.
> >     > In order to get the benefit of telemetry, we are imposing a change
> in forwarding protocol/topology and configuration - which, I feel is not
> desirable. For example, a customer might have basic L3 routing enabled and
> the expectation would be for inband telemetry to work seamlessly, without
> having to revamp the network with GRE tunnels and such. This could be a
> significant barrier to deployment.
> >     > If sampling is used to select packets for performing IOAM encap,
> is the expectation that only sampled IOAM packets go through GRE encap? Or
> all data packets?
> >     > Due to network nodes inserting the IOAM data, the inner L3/L4
> headers keep getting pushed deeper. I would imagine this gets challenging
> for ASICs to access these fields for hashing/load balancing.
> >     > Assuming only a subset of packets in a flow are subject to IOAM
> (based on sampling), how do we ensure these packets take the same network
> path as the rest of the packets in the flow?
> >     >
> >     > Thanks,
> >     >
> >     > Vijay
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 5:04 PM Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) <
> cpignata@cisco.com> wrote:
> >     >
> >     > Hello, Vijay,
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > Please see
> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-weis-ippm-ioam-eth%2F&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cgbarak%40mellanox.com%7Ce4ccee89b9bc4e1274ce08d727455b2a%7Ca652971c7d2e4d9ba6a4d149256f461b%7C0%7C0%7C637021051167634230&amp;sdata=PykE1LWuF5gfIvL3ZiS242rAKnh%2FEZ5PXjZrp6dQXy4%3D&amp;reserved=0p;reserved=0,
> and the document this replaces.
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > Thanks!
> >     >
> >     > Thumb typed by Carlos Pignataro.
> >     >
> >     > Excuze typofraphicak errows
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > 2019/08/21 6:35、Vijay Rangarajan <vijayr@arista.com>のメールt;のメール:
> >     >
> >     > Hello all:
> >     >
> >     > Apologise if this has been previously discussed.
> >     >
> >     > In reading "draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-06", I don't see mention of
> GRE encap. The draft, in fact in Sec 3, says the following - "The in-situ
> OAM data field can be transported by a variety of transport protocols,
> including NSH, Segment Routing, Geneve, IPv6, or IPv4.  Specification
> details for these different transport protocols are outside the scope of
> this document."
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > Is there another document, or a description somewhere, that talks
> about how IOAM is proposed to be carried in GRE? what would be the GRE
> payload, the GRE protocol type etc?
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > Thanks,
> >     >
> >     > Vijay
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 7:52 AM Jai Kumar <jai.kumar@broadcom.com>
> wrote:
> >     >
> >     > Hello Frank,
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > This is in context of our conversation at IETF105. My goal is to
> provide input and improve current IOAM data draft with the learnings we had
> with IFA deployment.
> >     >
> >     > This feedback is based on various customer interactions and
> concerns raised by them wrt IOAM. Each feedback is a longer topic and I am
> starting this thread as a summary email. This is just highlighting the
> issues and not yet proposing any solution.
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > Feedback 1:
> >     >
> >     > Section 4.2..1 Pre-allocated and Incremental Trace Options
> >     >
> >     > Pre-allocated and incremental trace option is 8Bytes long. This
> can be easily reduced to 4Bytes.
> >     >
> >     > There is a feedback that pre-allocated option is really not needed
> and either be removed or made optional.
> >     >
> >     > Given that deployments are sensitive to the IOAM overhead
> (specially in 5G deployments), it’s a 50% fixed overhead savings on a per
> packet basis.
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > Feedback 2:
> >     >
> >     > Section 4.1 IOAM Namespaces
> >     >
> >     > Namespaces should be treated as templates (similar to IPFIX
> template record formats). This is more flexible way of enumerating data.
> 64K namespace id is a very large namespace and can be reduced to 64 IANA
> specified name spaces. Separate private name space can be allowed instead
> of interleaving of opaque data in the IANA allocated name space as
> suggested in the current draft “opaque state snapshot”.
> >     >
> >     >
> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Frfc7011%23section-3.4&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cgbarak%40mellanox.com%7Ce4ccee89b9bc4e1274ce08d727455b2a%7Ca652971c7d2e4d9ba6a4d149256f461b%7C0%7C0%7C637021051167634230&amp;sdata=WgPKon9dcPr2bhKG0amAA2rLs9DVKbQTUmjF7FZMYHs%3D&amp;reserved=0
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > Feedback 3:
> >     >
> >     > Section 4.2.1 Pre-allocated and Incremental Trace Options
> >     >
> >     > IOAM-Trace-Type:  A 24-bit identifier which specifies which data
> >     >
> >     >       types are used in this node data list.
> >     >
> >     > This is the most contentious of all. In the current proposal, as
> new data fields are added, there is a corresponding trace type bit need in
> the header. This essentially means that all possible data fields need to be
> enumerated. Given that we there are 64K names spaces allowed, I don’t see
> how we can fit all possible data fields in this 24bit vector. I know there
> was a suggestion of keeping last bit as an extension bit but it is still
> scalable and/or easy to implement in hardware. Besides this the data fields
> are not annotated/encoded with the data type, something like in IPFIX
> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Frfc7011%23section-6.1&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cgbarak%40mellanox.com%7Ce4ccee89b9bc4e1274ce08d727455b2a%7Ca652971c7d2e4d9ba6a4d149256f461b%7C0%7C0%7C637021051167644216&amp;sdata=1lWHooNEDwt4Rh8oxXy2VlyyRgoWBZr6Ig%2BYvQQJfYk%3D&amp;reserved=0
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > Feedback 4:
> >     >
> >     > There is no version field in the data header and this will make
> interoperability challenging. Standard will evolve and headers bit
> definition and/or trace type will change and without version field HW will
> not be able to correctly handle the IOAM data headers.
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > Feedback 5:
> >     >
> >     > Handling of TCP/UDP traffic using GRE encap is not acceptable.
> Here are some of the issues I can think of
> >     >
> >     > GRE encaped IOAM packets will traverse a different network path
> then the original packet
> >     > Not all packets can be GRE encaped to avoid the previous problem,
> due to wastage of network bandwidth (typically sampled traffic is used for
> IOAM). What about native GRE traffic, will it get further encaped in
> another GRE tunnel and so forth.
> >     > IP header protocol will point to GRE IP proto and IOAM ethertype
> (pending allocation by IEEE) need to be read from the GRE header to detect
> an IOAM packet. This means parsing performance penalty for all regular GRE
> (non IOAM) traffic.
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > Thanks,
> >     >
> >     > -Jai
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > _______________________________________________
> >     > ippm mailing list
> >     > ippm@ietf.org
> >     >
> > https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.
> > ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fippm&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cgbarak%40mella
> > nox.com%7Ce4ccee89b9bc4e1274ce08d727455b2a%7Ca652971c7d2e4d9ba6a4d1492
> > 56f461b%7C0%7C0%7C637021051167644216&amp;sdata=VrxNh%2FdRh%2FYasyWtFXS
> > et2I5iADIY0U5vDjLd6ObAmU%3D&amp;reserved=0
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> ippm@ietf.org
>
> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fippm&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cgbarak%40mellanox.com%7Ce4ccee89b9bc4e1274ce08d727455b2a%7Ca652971c7d2e4d9ba6a4d149256f461b%7C0%7C0%7C637021051167644216&amp;sdata=VrxNh%2FdRh%2FYasyWtFXSet2I5iADIY0U5vDjLd6ObAmU%3D&amp;reserved=0
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> ippm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
>