Re: [nvo3] [ippm] [Int-area] encapsulation of IOAM data in various protocols - follow up from WG discussion in London
Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com> Tue, 17 April 2018 01:18 UTC
Return-Path: <zhoutianran@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: nvo3@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nvo3@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFCE112E8A8; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 18:18:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-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 j-e554AIbG8C; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 18:18:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A37C712D7F2; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 18:18:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml704-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id F001D307866C0; Tue, 17 Apr 2018 02:18:05 +0100 (IST)
Received: from NKGEML414-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.75) by lhreml704-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.45) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.382.0; Tue, 17 Apr 2018 02:18:07 +0100
Received: from NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com ([fe80::a54a:89d2:c471:ff]) by nkgeml414-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.75]) with mapi id 14.03.0361.001; Tue, 17 Apr 2018 09:18:00 +0800
From: Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com>
To: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
CC: "Shwetha Bhandari (shwethab)" <shwethab@cisco.com>, "Frank Brockners (fbrockne)" <fbrockne@cisco.com>, Mickey Spiegel <mspiegel@barefootnetworks.com>, NVO3 <nvo3@ietf.org>, Service Function Chaining IETF list <sfc@ietf.org>, IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [ippm] [Int-area] encapsulation of IOAM data in various protocols - follow up from WG discussion in London
Thread-Index: AQHT0qfYMJmDjLfNRU+b5k8Wa55hLqP9MIyAgABxbYCAANtOAIAD+q4AgACbFcD//4GggIAAiFIg//+PoQCAALymQf//jQEAACbtLsA=
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2018 01:17:59 +0000
Message-ID: <BBA82579FD347748BEADC4C445EA0F21A6D638D3@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <ff0c9182d1f14ec48b352e41fedaf58e@XCH-RCD-008.cisco.com> <CA+RyBmUNHcQZtTGJj67V=DqPkwV6GXWDUQJGjwT7ODEFg_QQFA@mail.gmail.com> <CALx6S36ojk0z+iOhNhFqF2A+acXC1=xHPEN7G0Y_9+itC+WiGQ@mail.gmail.com> <CACYmcDqd2gwUTmjj-BssB1Bh7EAVi6v_Uu6Qq9XXd2RbdMnGGw@mail.gmail.com> <CALx6S37aig+JJ8WPgC6NDeNExJ_qS9LZweSL2TOgD1EPqZRwTQ@mail.gmail.com> <CACYmcDqVzr9y-LyUzJPs98mrmGZynUCUiPwepNBQpsKdyweyPQ@mail.gmail.com> <fb963e482d074551853ce83816f24c7f@XCH-RCD-008.cisco.com> <BBA82579FD347748BEADC4C445EA0F21A6D62FA3@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com> <8d1b3bb4a1794c4fac3455257e0ab60e@XCH-RCD-008.cisco.com> <BBA82579FD347748BEADC4C445EA0F21A6D62FD6@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com> <C7371A46-50F6-4A08-9719-5B2AB51091B3@cisco.com> <BBA82579FD347748BEADC4C445EA0F21A6D63236@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com> <CALx6S377-PdtAno2Jho3E_JfOeHzAc+xzjWckZycdJYsWSqSQA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALx6S377-PdtAno2Jho3E_JfOeHzAc+xzjWckZycdJYsWSqSQA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.156.116]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nvo3/RGa82ysga4vq93DZmDndRQOlSLM>
Subject: Re: [nvo3] [ippm] [Int-area] encapsulation of IOAM data in various protocols - follow up from WG discussion in London
X-BeenThere: nvo3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Network Virtualization Overlays \(NVO3\) Working Group" <nvo3.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/nvo3>, <mailto:nvo3-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/nvo3/>
List-Post: <mailto:nvo3@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nvo3-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3>, <mailto:nvo3-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2018 01:18:14 -0000
I think it's better that Frank or Shwetha can explain the multi-layer use case in detail. Tianran > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom Herbert [mailto:tom@herbertland.com] > Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 10:40 PM > To: Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com> > Cc: Shwetha Bhandari (shwethab) <shwethab@cisco.com>; Frank Brockners > (fbrockne) <fbrockne@cisco.com>; Mickey Spiegel > <mspiegel@barefootnetworks.com>; NVO3 <nvo3@ietf.org>; int-area > <int-area@ietf.org>; Service Function Chaining IETF list <sfc@ietf.org>; > IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org> > Subject: Re: [ippm] [Int-area] encapsulation of IOAM data in various > protocols - follow up from WG discussion in London > > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 6:31 AM, Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com> wrote: > > Hi Shwetha, > > > > You are talking about the outer encapsution. It is straight forward > > for the underlay to record by the header. But what about the overlay, > > i.e., inner encapsulation(e.g. geneve)? Without special configuration, > > intermediate node will not read the inner header, hence not be able to > > process IOAM.e > > Hi Tianran, > > I believe that is also not protocol conformant. Intermediate nodes should > not be processing transport layer data as this can lead to misinterpretation > and possibly silent data corruption. > > For instance, Geneve is a UDP encapsulation protocol with assigned port 6081. > In order for an intermediate device to process the Geneve encapsulation header > it would need to look for packets with destination port of 6081 since that > is the only possible discriminator. However, transport port numbers do not > have global meaning and hosts may use port numbers for other purposes (RFC7605 > describes this). So a packet to port 6081 might be something other than Geneve > and may be misinterpreted. If a misinterpreted packet is changed (like ippm > data is written) then that would be systematic silent data corruption. > > As far as I know, hop-by-hop options is the only protocol confirming mechanism > that allows an intermediate note to change data of packet in flight. > Encpasulation is the only conforming mechanism that allows an intermediate > node to add data (like extension headers) to a packet in flight. > > Tom > > > Maybe we are not synced by this overlay/underlay use case. :-) > > > > Tianran > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > Sent from WeLink > > > > 发件人: Shwetha Bhandari (shwethab) > > 收件人: Tianran Zhou<zhoutianran@huawei.com>;Frank Brockners > > (fbrockne)<fbrockne@cisco.com>;Mickey > > Spiegel<mspiegel@barefootnetworks.com>;Tom > > Herbert<tom@herbertland.com> > > 抄送: NVO3<nvo3@ietf.org>;int-area<int-area@ietf.org>;Service Function > > Chaining IETF list<sfc@ietf.org>;IETF IPPM WG<ippm@ietf.org> > > 主题: Re: [ippm] [Int-area] encapsulation of IOAM data in various > > protocols - follow up from WG discussion in London > > 时间: 2018-04-16 18:17:01 > > > > Hi Tianran, > > > >> If I recall right, it is not written in the ioam data draft. > > > > Data draft is defining the data to be carried in IOAM in an > > encapsulation agnostic way, it does not specify how the encapsulation > > protocol is configured. > > > > > > > >> Yes, node by node configuration is an easy way. > > > > While it is, it does not have to be a node by node configuration. It > > can be part of the encapsulation definition. > > > > For e.g. If the encapsulation is IPv6 and if we define the data to be > > carried as HbH options, then based on the Option Type with highest > > order 2 bits set to 00 then the v6 nodes that implement IOAM will > > process the option and others will skip over. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Shwetha > > > > > > > > From: ippm <ippm-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Tianran Zhou > > <zhoutianran@huawei.com> > > Date: Monday, April 16, 2018 at 2:36 PM > > To: "Frank Brockners (fbrockne)" <fbrockne@cisco.com>, Mickey Spiegel > > <mspiegel@barefootnetworks.com>, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> > > Cc: NVO3 <nvo3@ietf.org>, "int-area@ietf.org" <int-area@ietf.org>, > > Service Function Chaining IETF list <sfc@ietf.org>, IETF IPPM WG > > <ippm@ietf.org> > > Subject: Re: [ippm] [Int-area] encapsulation of IOAM data in various > > protocols - follow up from WG discussion in London > > > > > > > > Hi Frank, > > > > > > > > If I recall right, it is not written in the ioam data draft. > > > > Yes, node by node configuration is an easy way. In the > > draft-zhou-ippm-ioam-yang, we have the “protocol-type” to indicate the > > layering. > > > > +--rw ioam > > > > +--rw ioam-profiles > > > > +--rw enabled? boolean > > > > +--rw ioam-profile* [profile-name] > > > > +--rw profile-name string > > > > +--rw filter > > > > | +--rw filter-type? ioam-filter-type > > > > | +--rw acl-name? -> /acl:acls/acl/name > > > > +--rw protocol-type? ioam-protocol-type > > > > +--rw incremental-tracing-profile {incremental-trace}? > > > > | ... > > > > +--rw preallocated-tracing-profile {preallocated-trace}? > > > > | ... > > > > +--rw pot-profile {proof-of-transit}? > > > > | ... > > > > +--rw e2e-profile {edge-to-edge}? > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > Tianran > > > > From: Frank Brockners (fbrockne) [mailto:fbrockne@cisco.com] > > Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 4:51 PM > > To: Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com>; Mickey Spiegel > > <mspiegel@barefootnetworks.com>; Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> > > Cc: NVO3 <nvo3@ietf.org>; int-area@ietf.org; Service Function Chaining > > IETF list <sfc@ietf.org>; IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org> > > Subject: RE: [ippm] [Int-area] encapsulation of IOAM data in various > > protocols - follow up from WG discussion in London > > > > > > > > Hi Tianran, > > > > > > > > IOAM is a domain specific feature (see also > > draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-02 sections 3 and 4), which allows an > > operator to control by means of configuration where and for which > > traffic IOAM data fields are added/updated/removed from the customer > > traffic. Using your example of Geneve over IPv6 – with IOAM data in > > both the Geneve and the IPv6 protocol, one would expect that the > > operator configures the endpoints of the Geneve tunnel to operate on > > the IOAM data in Geneve, and the IPv6 routers that the Geneve tunnel > traverses to operate on the IOAM data in IPv6. > > > > > > > > Frank > > > > > > > > From: Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com> > > Sent: Montag, 16. April 2018 10:37 > > To: Frank Brockners (fbrockne) <fbrockne@cisco.com>; Mickey Spiegel > > <mspiegel@barefootnetworks.com>; Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> > > Cc: NVO3 <nvo3@ietf.org>; int-area@ietf.org; Service Function Chaining > > IETF list <sfc@ietf.org>; IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org> > > Subject: RE: [ippm] [Int-area] encapsulation of IOAM data in various > > protocols - follow up from WG discussion in London > > > > > > > > Hi Frank, > > > > > > > > How does a forwarder know when and where to insert the data? > > > > In the case of Geneve over IPv6, do you mean the device need to scan > > all the protocol stack? Or just the outer encapsulation? > > > > > > > > Tianran > > > > > > > > From: ippm [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Frank Brockners > > (fbrockne) > > Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 3:08 PM > > To: Mickey Spiegel <mspiegel@barefootnetworks.com>; Tom Herbert > > <tom@herbertland.com> > > Cc: NVO3 <nvo3@ietf.org>; int-area@ietf.org; Service Function Chaining > > IETF list <sfc@ietf.org>; IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org> > > Subject: Re: [ippm] [Int-area] encapsulation of IOAM data in various > > protocols - follow up from WG discussion in London > > > > > > > > > > > > Tom, > > > > > > > > a quick addition to what Mickey mentioned below: What you seem to have > > in mind is what draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-02 refers to as “layering” > > (see section 3.), i.e. if you’re running for example Geneve over IPv6, > > then IOAM data could be encapsulated in both protocols, Geneve and > > IPv6 – giving you visibility into the “underlay” (IPv6) and the “overlay” > (Geneve). > > > > > > > > Frank > > > > > > > > From: ippm <ippm-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Mickey Spiegel > > Sent: Freitag, 13. April 2018 20:22 > > To: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> > > Cc: NVO3 <nvo3@ietf.org>; int-area@ietf.org; Service Function Chaining > > IETF list <sfc@ietf.org>; IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org> > > Subject: Re: [ippm] [Int-area] encapsulation of IOAM data in various > > protocols - follow up from WG discussion in London > > > > > > > > Tom, > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 10:17 PM, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> wrote: > > > > Mickey, > > > > Looking at these ippm drafts more closely, I have a much more > > fundamental concern. > > > > In draft-brockners-ippm-ioam-geneve-00 for instance, there is the text > > in the introduction: > > > > "In-situ OAM (IOAM) records OAM information within the packet while > > the packet traverses a particular network domain. The term "in-situ" > > refers to the fact that the IOAM data fields are added to the data > > packets rather than is being sent within packets specifically > > dedicated to OAM. This document defines how IOAM data fields are > > transported as part of the Geneve [I-D.ietf-nvo3-geneve] > > encapsulation." > > > > I assume this means that as packets with Geneve encapsulation traverse > > the network they are interpreted by intermediate nodes as being > > Geneve. Since Geneve is a UDP encapsulation, then the destination UDP > > port number would be used to identify packets as being Geneve. So an > > intermediate device might be looking for UDP packets destined to port > > 6081 (the assigned UDP port for Geneve). If my understanding is > > correct, then this is a problem. > > > > UDP port numbers do not have global meaning. An intermediate device > > may very well see UDP packets destined to port 6081 that are not > > actually Geneve. This scenario is discussed in RFC7605: > > > > "...intermediate device interprets traffic based on the port number. > > It is important to recognize that any interpretation of port numbers > > -- except at the endpoints -- may be incorrect, because port numbers > > are meaningful only at the endpoints." > > > > If the UDP data is modified, as the draft would imply, then > > misinterpretation may also mean silent data corruption of packets. A > > protocol that would allow this seems pretty incorrect! Note that this > > would be true also for any UDP encapsulation that the network tries to > > interpret. > > > > > > > > The intention is to allow for multiple nodes that a packet traverses > > > > to be able to insert IOAM node information in the same trace option, > > > > but leave some flexibility regarding which nodes actually do the > > > > IOAM processing and the node information. This may vary > > > > depending on the transport. > > > > > > > > In case of a tunneled encapsulation such as Geneve or VXLAN, > > > > there may still be multiple hops. For example a network may use > > > > Geneve or VXLAN, but only do L2 processing at ToRs, with L3 > > > > processing done at aggregation or core switches. In this case > > > > many packets would do 2 Geneve or VXLAN hops, so the packet > > > > would contain IOAM node information from two nodes. > > > > > > > > Another example is service function chaining using Geneve or > > > > VXLAN rather than NSH. > > > > > > > > > > I am also wondering if hop-by-hop options been considered for this > > application? Their interpretation in the network is unabiguous and > > they also have the advantage that the work with any IP protocol or > > encapsulation. > > > > > > > > IPv6 hop-by-hop options has been considered. See > > > > draft-brockners-inband-oam-transport-05. This has not yet been > > > > broken out into a separate draft. > > > > > > > > Mickey > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > Tom > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 3:31 PM, Mickey Spiegel > > <mspiegel@barefootnetworks.com> wrote: > > > >> Tom, > >> > >> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 2:46 PM, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 9:54 AM, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> > Hi Frank, > >>> > thank you for sharing your points. Please find my notes in-line > >>> > and tagged > >>> > GIM>>. I believe that this is very much relevant to work of other > >>> > working > >>> > groups that directly work on the overlay encapsulations in the > >>> > center of the discussion and hence I've added them to the list. > >>> > Hope we'll have more opinions to reach the conclusion that is > >>> > acceptable to all. > >>> > > >>> > Regards, > >>> > Greg > >>> > > >>> > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 12:02 PM, Frank Brockners (fbrockne) > >>> > <fbrockne@cisco.com> 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. > >>> Greg, > >>> > >>> I'm missing something here. I looked at the drafts you referenced > >>> and each of them looks like the overhead for OAM is greater that > >>> four bytes. In each there is some overhead equivalent to > >>> type/length, for instance in Geneve four bytes are needed for option > >>> class, type, and length. Unless the the OAM data is zero length, I > >>> don't see how this adds up to only four bytes of overhead. > >> > >> > >> The four versus eight bytes just refers to the fields in the four > >> bytes of IOAM info, that is common to all IOAM options. Beyond that, > >> there are IOAM option specific fields. For example if doing one of > >> the IOAM trace options, there are four bytes of trace option header, > >> including the IOAM-trace-type, NodeLen, Flags, and RemainingLen > >> fields. These are followed by the node data list containing the per > >> hop IOAM information. > >> > >> In looking at the OOAM header content, it has nothing to do with any > >> of the IOAM information after the first four bytes. It contains > >> another variant of the information in the first four bytes of IOAM > >> info, spread out over eight bytes. > >> > >>> > >>> Tom > >>> > >>> > > >>> > GIM>> The difference in four octets is because OOAM Header: > >>> > > >>> > provides more flexibility, e.g. Flags field and Reserved fields; > >> > >> > >> The flags field only has one defined flag at the moment, for a > >> timestamp block. For IOAM trace we need per hop timestamps, which the > >> timestamp block cannot address, i.e. the timestamp block is redundant for > IOAM. > >> > >>> > >>> > supports larger OAM packets than iOAM header; > >> > >> > >> For IOAM purposes, 1020 octets is more than enough. > >> > >>> > >>> > is future proof by supporting versioning (Version field). > >> > >> > >> IMO, taking the first two bits of the IOAM-Type to define a Version > >> field would be a good thing. This does not require adding four more > >> bytes of overhead. 64 IOAM-Types is more than enough. > >> > >>> > >>> >> > >>> >> * 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 > >>> > GIM>> 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 > >>> >> ippm@ietf.org > >>> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > _______________________________________________ > >>> > Int-area mailing list > >>> > Int-area@ietf.org > >>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area > >>> > > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> ippm mailing list > >>> ippm@ietf.org > >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm > >> > >> > > > >
- Re: [nvo3] [ippm] encapsulation of IOAM data in v… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [nvo3] [ippm] encapsulation of IOAM data in v… Frank Brockners (fbrockne)
- Re: [nvo3] [Int-area] [ippm] encapsulation of IOA… Tom Herbert
- Re: [nvo3] [Int-area] [ippm] encapsulation of IOA… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [nvo3] [ippm] encapsulation of IOAM data in v… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [nvo3] [Int-area] [ippm] encapsulation of IOA… Tom Herbert
- Re: [nvo3] [Int-area] [ippm] encapsulation of IOA… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [nvo3] [Int-area] [ippm] encapsulation of IOA… Tom Herbert
- Re: [nvo3] [Int-area] [ippm] encapsulation of IOA… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [nvo3] [ippm] [Int-area] encapsulation of IOA… Mickey Spiegel
- Re: [nvo3] [Int-area] [ippm] encapsulation of IOA… Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
- Re: [nvo3] [ippm] encapsulation of IOAM data in v… Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
- Re: [nvo3] [ippm] [Int-area] encapsulation of IOA… Tom Herbert
- Re: [nvo3] [ippm] [Int-area] encapsulation of IOA… Tom Herbert
- Re: [nvo3] [Int-area] [ippm] encapsulation of IOA… Frank Brockners (fbrockne)
- Re: [nvo3] [Int-area] [ippm] encapsulation of IOA… 徐小虎(义先)
- Re: [nvo3] [Int-area] [ippm] encapsulation of IOA… Frank Brockners (fbrockne)
- Re: [nvo3] [ippm] [Int-area] encapsulation of IOA… Mickey Spiegel
- Re: [nvo3] [sfc] [ippm] [Int-area] encapsulation … Uma Chunduri
- Re: [nvo3] [ippm] [Int-area] encapsulation of IOA… Tom Herbert
- Re: [nvo3] [ippm] [Int-area] encapsulation of IOA… Frank Brockners (fbrockne)
- Re: [nvo3] [ippm] [Int-area] encapsulation of IOA… Tianran Zhou
- Re: [nvo3] [ippm] [Int-area] encapsulation of IOA… Frank Brockners (fbrockne)
- Re: [nvo3] [ippm] [Int-area] encapsulation of IOA… Tianran Zhou
- Re: [nvo3] [ippm] [Int-area] encapsulation of IOA… Shwetha Bhandari (shwethab)
- Re: [nvo3] [ippm] [Int-area] encapsulation of IOA… Tianran Zhou
- Re: [nvo3] [ippm] [Int-area] encapsulation of IOA… Tom Herbert
- Re: [nvo3] [ippm] [Int-area] encapsulation of IOA… Tianran Zhou
- Re: [nvo3] [ippm] [Int-area] encapsulation of IOA… Frank Brockners (fbrockne)
- Re: [nvo3] [ippm] [Int-area] encapsulation of IOA… Tom Herbert
- Re: [nvo3] [ippm] [Int-area] encapsulation of IOA… Frank Brockners (fbrockne)
- Re: [nvo3] [ippm] [Int-area] encapsulation of IOA… Tom Herbert
- Re: [nvo3] [ippm] [Int-area] encapsulation of IOA… Frank Brockners (fbrockne)
- Re: [nvo3] [ippm] [Int-area] encapsulation of IOA… Tom Herbert
- Re: [nvo3] [ippm] encapsulation of IOAM data in v… John Lemon
- Re: [nvo3] [ippm] encapsulation of IOAM data in v… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [nvo3] [ippm] encapsulation of IOAM data in v… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [nvo3] [ippm] encapsulation of IOAM data in v… Frank Brockners (fbrockne)
- Re: [nvo3] [ippm] encapsulation of IOAM data in v… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [nvo3] [ippm] encapsulation of IOAM data in v… John Lemon
- Re: [nvo3] [ippm] encapsulation of IOAM data in v… Frank Brockners (fbrockne)
- Re: [nvo3] [sfc] [ippm] [Int-area] encapsulation … Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
- Re: [nvo3] [sfc] [ippm] [Int-area] encapsulation … Tom Herbert
- Re: [nvo3] [sfc] [ippm] [Int-area] encapsulation … Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
- Re: [nvo3] [sfc] [ippm] [Int-area] encapsulation … Tom Herbert
- Re: [nvo3] [sfc] [ippm] [Int-area] encapsulation … Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)