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

Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Mon, 18 January 2021 08:01 UTC

Return-Path: <loa@pi.nu>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C810C3A0C17 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 00:01:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.159
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.159 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.262, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 9SLBYTDpLSwS for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 00:01:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pipi.pi.nu (pipi.pi.nu [83.168.239.141]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DBE613A0C13 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 00:01:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.11] (unknown [124.104.17.232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: loa@pi.nu) by pipi.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E8AF2328C7F; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 09:01:17 +0100 (CET)
To: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
Cc: mpls@ietf.org
References: <202101181000168475475@zte.com.cn>
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
Message-ID: <cac1524d-c0e0-3587-6b8e-f5ec39d167b8@pi.nu>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2021 16:01:14 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <202101181000168475475@zte.com.cn>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/oTMzO_MFMKAOYtJ-QYRbbneqnNM>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Comment on draft-gandhi-mpls-ioam-sr-05
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mpls/>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2021 08:01:24 -0000

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.

Inline please


On 18/01/2021 10:00, xiao.min2@zte.com.cn 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)?


/Loa

-- 

Loa Andersson                        email: loa@pi.nu
Senior MPLS Expert                          loa.pi.nu@gmail.com
Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: +46 739 81 21 64