comment on draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-mark

[Giuseppe Fioccola <[e-mail]>]

Dear Igor, All,
Thanks for your comment during the 6MAN session of today.
This is just to share with 6MAN WG my reply and our offline discussion after the presentation.
I know your draft: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ferrieuxhamchaoui-tsvwg-lossbits-02

Firstly, it is worth highlighting that the scope of draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-mark is very simple: it applies RFC8321 (and draft-ietf-ippm-multipoint-alt-mark) to IPv6 data plane in order to provide an OAM performance measurement tool to enable network level monitoring (like RFC6374 for MPLS or Y.1731 for Ethernet and so on). This is to cover an OAM requirement since IPv6 lacks of a passive/hybrid performance measurement method.

The proposal in your draft (draft-ferrieuxhamchaoui-tsvwg-lossbits-02) is interesting but it aims to cover a different scenario since it is applicable to an encrypted client-server protocol such as QUIC or TCP. I'm also working on a similar problem (draft-cfb-ippm-spinbit-measurements). Anyway these methodologies are applicable to Client-Server protocol at transport level on top of the network level and the flow under monitoring is managed by the higher-level protocol.
So the main difference is that draft-ferrieuxhamchaoui-tsvwg-lossbits is applicable to QUIC/TCP while draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-mark is dedicated to IPv6.

In summary, the two methodologies are used separately since each layer needs its own OAM tools but they can also be used in combination to get richer information related to the lower/higher-layer protocol.

I think we may evaluate to add some considerations on that in a future version of our draft.

Regards,

Giuseppe