Re: [Rtg-ooam-dt] [nvo3] O-bit vs. OAM as Next Protocol (Re: Consensus call on encap proposals)

[Tom Herbert <[e-mail]>]

> Carlos,
>
> Thanks for the pointer, that looks like a good basis for an extensible
> and generic OAM inband measurement mechanism. I assume for IPv6 this
> would be appropriate as options in HBH extension headers, have you
> defined the formats for that?
>
>
> Thanks — and you are exactly right:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brockners-inband-oam-transport-01#section-3
>
> This was demoed as IPv6 edge to edge in Bits-n-Bites in Berlin.
>
That's great and gives us the most flexibility. We can generically use
the OAM options in the extension headers of any IPv6 packet, or in the
case of GUE encapsulation we can put the options as the GUE payload
since the GUE header carries an IP protocol number as next protocol.

Thanks,
Tom