Re: [sfc] [ippm] WGLC for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh/

[Shwetha Bhandari <[e-mail]>]

Hi Greg, Joel,

The purpose of these options are different. Reiterating the use cases
described in the draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-deployment draft : hop by hop tracing
related options are -pre-allocated, incremental,direct export. The
edge-to-edge option is not collecting trace but metrics at the edge and
helps in correlation e.g sequence number is inserted and used to identify
packet loss rate. The proof-of-transit option is used to prove that the
packet has traversed the check points in the networks.
There is also IOAM namespace that is used to collect specific data types in
trace options and a node can be configured to process trace options with a
specific namespace, this is useful when we have nodes with varying
implementation of trace option data types defined.
Restricting IOAM option in NSH to a specific number will make it difficult
to deploy. Hence I don't see a need to update the current draft to add any
of this restrictions. Let's use draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-deployment to
understand the use cases and deployment modes.

Thanks
Shwetha


On Wed, May 4, 2022, 3:01 AM Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Joel,
> thank you for highlighting this question, I've missed it.
>
> As we've discussed earlier, several IOAM trace options have been defined:
>
>    - pre-allocated
>    - incremental
>    - edge-to-edge
>    - proof-of-transit
>    - direct export
>    - hybrid two-step
>
> I cannot find a scenario when using more than one IOAM trace option that
> could be beneficial, and useful for an operator. I think that if there is
> no use case, then the restricting number of IOAM trace options used is
> reasonable and helps implementors in developing interoperable
> implementations.
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
> On Mon, May 2, 2022 at 2:42 PM Joel Halpern <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> (Sorry, catching up on some emails I missed.)
>>
>> If we want to allow multiple iOAM headers (up to the WG) then I think the
>> document needs to be clear on the meaning.  If there are multiple are all
>> supposed to be processed, just the top one until something removes it, a
>> random one of the receivers choice?  (Yes, that last is unlikely.)
>>
>> Yours,
>>
>> Joel
>> On 4/27/2022 4:44 AM, Shwetha Bhandari wrote:
>>
>> Hi Med,
>>
>> Thanks for the confirmation and quick review.
>>
>> On,
>>
>>> This means the new requested TBD_IOAM value will also be a valid next
>>> protocol. However, I wonder whether IOAM in IOAM in NSH is really something
>>> you want to have. If not, I suggest the text is updated to exclude it from
>>> the allowed value in the above excerpt.
>>
>> Per earlier discussion in this thread, quoting Frank's mail here for reference:
>>
>> In addition, I don’t think that draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh would be the
>>> appropriate place to discuss and restrict deployment options. E.g., I’m not
>>> sure why we’d want to restrict a deployment to using a single IOAM header
>>> only. E.g., one could think of using different headers for different
>>> namespaces or groups of namespaces for operational reasons. IMHO, such a
>>> discussion – if we really need it - would belong into
>>> draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-deployment, rather than into a draft that defines the
>>> encap of IOAM into NSH.
>>
>> I think the text on Next Protocol should be as is. We should not add
>> restrictions on number of IOAM headers that could be added to the packet.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Shwetha
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 1:46 PM <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Shwetha, all,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The changes look great. Thanks.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There is one specific point not addressed in previous replies. This is
>>> related to this text:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>       Next Protocol:  8-bit unsigned integer that determines the type of
>>>
>>>          header following IOAM.  The semantics of this field are
>>>
>>>          identical to the Next Protocol field in [RFC8300].
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This means the new requested TBD_IOAM value will also be a valid next protocol. However, I wonder whether IOAM in IOAM in NSH is really something you want to have. If not, I suggest the text is updated to exclude it from the allowed value in the above excerpt.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Other than that, I think that the draft is ready to move forward.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Med
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *De :* Shwetha Bhandari <[e-mail]>
>>> *Envoyé :* mercredi 27 avril 2022 10:06
>>> *À :* James Guichard <[e-mail]>;
>>> [e-mail]
>>> *Cc :* BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <[e-mail]>;
>>> Frank Brockners (fbrockne) <fbrockne=[e-mail]>;
>>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Tal Mizrahi <[e-mail]>;
>>> [e-mail]; Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>
>>> *Objet :* Re: [sfc] WGLC for
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh/
>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh/__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!NGDq-VFOnDYhCxrwRIz1KbT5hb_RKKqKigks-nyqK1RKq5UgpwytWb7clzmlN3o0X0XBWL0KnE3aQfL7wrrx5ZezQN_YdhHpnETuWA$>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear SFC chairs,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A new version of the draft I-D.ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh has been submitted per
>>> the discussion in this thread.
>>>
>>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh-09
>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh-09__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!NGDq-VFOnDYhCxrwRIz1KbT5hb_RKKqKigks-nyqK1RKq5UgpwytWb7clzmlN3o0X0XBWL0KnE3aQfL7wrrx5ZezQN_YdhFd29kDew$>
>>>
>>>
>>> Can we please progress this draft to IESG if there are no further
>>> comments?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Shwetha
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 6:41 PM Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Shwetha,
>>>
>>> thank you for the proposed resolution. I agree with Med, direct
>>> normative reference to I-D.ietf-sfc-oam-packet seems like the logical
>>> conclusion of our discussion of the use of the NSH O bit. Please note that
>>> we're referring to I-D.ietf-sfc-oam-packet in the Active SFC OAM draft,
>>> e.g.,:
>>>
>>> The O bit in NSH MUST be set, according to [I-D.ietf-sfc-oam-packet].
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Greg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 4:27 AM <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Shwetha,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I prefer we go for an explicit reference to I-D.ietf-sfc-oam-packet
>>> rather than “any update to RFC8300”. This is consistent with the usage in
>>> the other OAM draft.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Med
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *De :* Shwetha Bhandari <[e-mail]>
>>> *Envoyé :* jeudi 14 avril 2022 12:06
>>> *À :* Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>
>>> *Cc :* BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <[e-mail]>;
>>> Frank Brockners (fbrockne) <fbrockne=[e-mail]>;
>>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; James Guichard <
>>> [e-mail]>; Tal Mizrahi <[e-mail]>;
>>> [e-mail]
>>> *Objet :* Re: [sfc] WGLC for
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh/
>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh/__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!LWQuxxxKpUum5gUoK44-znjehj2YRtlGMOATxfRVSc-7JOrPsk4BA4iP0oLQE4d0rObPhOCG_1iiipywftwMIMOEWh8lJI4$>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Med, Greg,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> How about this text :
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> “The O-bit MUST be handled following the rules in and any updates
>>> to [RFC8300] ."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Given that I-D.ietf-sfc-oam-packet  will update RF8300 and there could
>>> be others in future?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Shwetha
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 9:24 PM Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Shwetha,
>>>
>>> I believe that the text you've quoted is helpful. I would suggest
>>> changing references from [RFC8300] to [I-D.ietf-sfc-oam-packet] throughout
>>> that paragraph.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Greg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 7:56 AM Shwetha Bhandari <
>>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Med,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for the details: this is exactly what we had before the latest
>>> revision:
>>>
>>> *4.2 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh-06*section-4.2__;Iw!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!NBsrzhHEf0Y_-Sindy74K4QDA6EWJjx35STSH-UxEi3eYIX0GVli9Sn1azrOPJVcI2qUzWfezK_1D2RpyFB_FOIpJPfzrvI$>.  IOAM and the use of the NSH O-bit*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>    [RFC8300] defines an "O bit" for OAM packets.  Per [RFC8300 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8300__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!NBsrzhHEf0Y_-Sindy74K4QDA6EWJjx35STSH-UxEi3eYIX0GVli9Sn1azrOPJVcI2qUzWfezK_1D2RpyFB_FOIpEB5AbbE$>] the O
>>>
>>>    bit must be set for OAM packets and must not be set for non-OAM
>>>
>>>    packets.  Packets with IOAM data included MUST follow this
>>>
>>>    definition, i.e. the O bit MUST NOT be set for regular customer
>>>
>>>    traffic which also carries IOAM data and the O bit MUST be set for
>>>
>>>    OAM packets which carry only IOAM data without any regular data
>>>
>>>    payload.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This was removed as per the discussion in this thread. Please check
>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sfc/srMit5zE8UseNOhxknAw_dqvj6M/
>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sfc/srMit5zE8UseNOhxknAw_dqvj6M/__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!NBsrzhHEf0Y_-Sindy74K4QDA6EWJjx35STSH-UxEi3eYIX0GVli9Sn1azrOPJVcI2qUzWfezK_1D2RpyFB_FOIp-CeLfeA$>
>>>
>>> It looks like we are going in a loop here. This definition of SFC OAM
>>> packet to include the OAM data that comes in inner packets via the next
>>> protocol header chain is introduced in draft-ietf-sfc-oam-packet to update
>>> the RFC8300.
>>>
>>> Jim, What are you thoughts on this? Should we reintroduce the above text
>>> ?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Shwetha
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
>>>
>>> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
>>>
>>> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
>>>
>>> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
>>>
>>> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
>>>
>>> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
>>>
>>> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
>>>
>>> Thank you.
>>>
>>> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>>>
>>> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
>>> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
>>> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
>>> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>>>
>>> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
>>> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
>>> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
>>> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
>>> Thank you.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>> ippm mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
>>
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!KzP7tEXj2r_E1qNyQ90q9rykJ0iG0HA0CecIGBFXEIXiWITYay7wwoC0HbiFfO2GyUarxht3JEY45vcV4uCtZ8Xkud0uv58$>
>>
>