Re: [mpls] Comment on draft-gandhi-mpls-ioam-sr-05

[[e-mail]]

Hi Loa,

Please see inline my responses with <XM>.

Best Regards,
Xiao Min









原始邮件



发件人：LoaAndersson
收件人：肖敏10093570;
抄送人：[e-mail];
日 期 ：2021年01月18日 16:01
主 题 ：Re: [mpls] Comment on draft-gandhi-mpls-ioam-sr-05




Xiao,
 
I have not been active in any OAM work, and not in the iOAM development,  
so I'm on a learning curve. So one more question.
<XM> It's my pleasure if I can help here.


Inline please
 
 
On 18/01/2021 10:00, [e-mail] wrote:
> If I understand this correctly that is what is done by Hop-by-Hop IOAM.
> <XM> Per IOAM itself, the Edge-to-Edge IOAM and Hop-by-Hop IOAM are  
> independent of each other, they use different IOAM Option-Type. Per MPLS  
> indicator label, I agree with you that Hop-by-Hop IOAM indicator label  
> can be reused here, but IMHO the current text in this draft is not clear  
> on it.
 
Let us assume that a packet arrive to an egress node with (1) with an
e-2-e iOAM indicator and another packet (2) arrive with the hop-by-hop  
indicator.
 
Is there a difference t0 what the egress node do to (1) and what it does  
to (2)?
<XM> As I understand it, there is no difference. Here the only function of iOAM indicator is for the egress node to know there exists IOAM header below the MPLS label stack, and how to process the IOAM data fields within the IOAM header depends on IOAM Option-Type.


 
/Loa
 
--  
 
Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]
Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: [phone]