Hi Stewart, Hi Xiao, Loa, FYI: I believe the latest revision (06) addresses this comment. Welcome your feedback on that. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-gandhi-mpls-ioam-sr-06
Thanks for your review. Regards, Rakesh On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 3:57 PM Rakesh Gandhi <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Stewart, > Thanks for your comments. If we have a mechanism like following, does that > address the issue? > > 1. IOAM header is part of the MPLS encapsulation, any other control > word is added after the IOAM header in the data packet. > 2. The transit nodes can process the IOAM data field(s) after the EOS > in data packets as it is proposed. > 3. The decapsulating node removes the MPLS encapsulation including the > IOAM header and then processes the other control word following it. > > 0 1 2 3 > > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > | IOAM Indicator Label | TC |1| TTL | > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+<-+ > > |0 0 0 1|Version| Reserved | IOAM G-ACh | | > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | > > | Reserved | Block Number | IOAM-OPT-Type |IOAM HDR Length| | > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ I > > | | O > > | | A > > ~ IOAM Option and Data Space ~ M > > | | | > > | | | > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+<-+ > > |0 0 0 0| Rsved | This Header | Header Length | Next Header | > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > ~ Variable field per “This header” ~ > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > | | > > | | > > ~ Payload Packet ~ > > | | > > | | > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > Thanks, > Rakesh > > > > On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 10:00 AM Stewart Bryant <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Thank you Jeffery >> >> Please see the note that I sent about iOAM who also want to sit after BoS >> … and both of you want the same space that PALS and DetNet is already using. >> >> We plan to have a joint session on this hosted by PALS at the next IETF, >> but I think we also need to include the iOAM people. >> >> This has scope to get very messy as we find new candidates for BoS >> metadata so we really need to take a holistic position to ensure the future >> health the MPLS protocol. >> >> - Stewart >> >> >> > On 12 Jan 2021, at 14:27, Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > Hi, >> > >> > I just posted >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zzhang-intarea-generic-delivery-functions/ >> . >> > >> > The initial version was posted to the tsvwg ( >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zzhang-tsvwg-generic-transport-functions-00). >> After discussions/feedback we are re-homing it to intarea wg. This new >> version also contains quite some changes based on the comments and feedback >> that we received (special thanks to Stewart). >> > >> > Comments and suggestions are appreciated. >> > >> > Thanks. >> > Jeffrey >> > >> > Juniper Business Use Only >> >> _______________________________________________ >> mpls mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls >> >
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
