Re: [nvo3] [Int-area] [ippm] encapsulation of IOAM data in various protocols - follow up from WG discussion in London

[" 徐小虎(义先) " <[e-mail]>]

Hi,
It said in draft-brockners-ippm-ioam-vxlan-gpe-00:
"   [I-D.ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe] defines an "O bit" for OAM packets.  Per
   [I-D.ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe] the O bit indicates that the packet
   contains an OAM message instead of data payload.  Packets that carry
   IOAM data fields in addition to regular data payload / customer
   traffic must not set the O bit.  Packets that carry only IOAM data
   fields without any payload must set the O bit."
My first question is: if the Next Protocol field within the VXLAN-GPE header should be resorted to indicate the IOAM, why do we still need the "O" bit? 
It said in draft-brockners-ippm-ioam-vxlan-gpe-00:
"Next Protocol:  8-bit unsigned integer that determines the type of
      header following IOAM protocol.  The value is from the IANA             registry setup for VXLAN GPE Next Protocol defined in
      [I-D.ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe]."
My second question is: why the "Next Protocol" is designed to be context-specific (i.e., specific to the tunnel over which the IOAM data fields are contained). In other words, wouldn't it be better to make the Next Protocol tunnel-independant since the IOAM is intended to be added into various tunnel encapsulations?

My third question is: does it means intermediate nodes must be aware of various tunnel encapsulations since the IOAM data field is behind the tunnel header? wouldn't it be better to carry the IOAM data just behind the outer IP header?
Best regards,Xiaohu
On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 12:02 PM, Frank Brockners (fbrockne) <[e-mail]> wrote:
Back at the IPPM meeting in London, we discussed several drafts dealing with the encapsulation of IOAM data in various protocols (draft-brockners-ippm-ioam-vxlan-gpe-00, draft-brockners-ippm-ioam-geneve-00, draft-weis-ippm-ioam-gre-00).
 One discussion topic that we decided to take to the list was the question on whether draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-ooam-header could be leveraged.  After carefully considering draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-ooam-header, I came to the conclusion that the “OOAM header” does not meet
 the needs of IOAM:* Efficiency: IOAM adds data to live user traffic. As such, an encapsulation needs to be as efficient as possible. The “OOAM header” is 8 bytes long. The approach for IOAM data encapsulation in the above mentioned drafts
 only requires 4 bytes. Using the OOAM header approach would add an unnecessary overhead of 4 bytes – which is significant.GIM>> The difference in four octets is because OOAM Header:provides more flexibility, e.g. Flags field and Reserved fields;supports larger OAM packets than iOAM header;is future proof by supporting versioning (Version field).
* Maturity: IOAM has several implementations, which were also shown at recent IETF hackathons – and we’re expecting additional implementations to be publicized soon. Interoperable implementations need timely specifications.
 Despite the question being asked, the recent thread on OOAM in the NVO3 list hasn’t revealed any implementation of the OOAM header. In addition, the thread revealed that several fundamental questions about the OOAM header are still open, such as whether or
 how active OAM mechanisms within protocols such as Geneve would apply to the OOAM header. This ultimately means that we won’t get to a timely specification.GIM>> May I ask which encapsulations supported by the implementations you refer to. Until very recently all iOAM proposals were to use meta-data TLV in, e.g. Geneve and NSH. And if these or some of these implementations already updated to the newly proposed iOAM shim, I don't see problem in making them use OOAM Header. Would you agree? * Scope: It isn’t entirely clear to which protocols the OOAM header would ultimately apply to. The way the OOAM header is defined, OOAM uses a 8-bit field for “Next Prot”, the next protocol. Some protocols that IOAM data
 needs to be encapsulated into use 16-bits for their next protocol code points. See e.g. the GRE encapsulation – as specified in draft-weis-ippm-ioam-gre-00.GIM>> The first paragraph of the Introduction section states:   New protocols that support overlay networks like VxLAN-GPE   [I-D.ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe], GUE [I-D.ietf-nvo3-gue], Geneve   [I-D.ietf-nvo3-geneve], BIER [I-D.ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation], and   NSH [I-D.ietf-sfc-nsh] support multi-protocol payload, e.g.   Ethernet, IPv4/IPv6, and recognize Operations, Administration, and   Maintenance (OAM) as one of distinct types.  That ensures that   Overlay OAM (OOAM)packets are sharing fate with Overlay data packet   traversing the underlay. I'm updating the OOAM Header draft and along with cleaning nits will update reference to GUE. I think that the list and the statemnt are quite clear in identifying the scope of networks that may benefit from using not only common OOAM Header but common OOAM mechanisms, e.g. Echo Request/Reply.
With the above in mind, I’d suggest that the WG moves forward with specific definitions for encapsulating IOAM data into protocols – per the above mentioned drafts. Regards, Frank
_______________________________________________

ippm mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm