Hi Giuseppe, I have a question about your statement: But if nodes on the path do not support some capabilities, it is not a big issue. Indeed, both Alternate Marking and IOAM documents specify that nodes that do not support a specific functionality will forward the packet without any changes to the data fields and they are simply not considered in the measurement.
Is the expectation that a packet marked with IOAM or AltMarking will be forwarded by a non-supporting node applies to all IETF networking technologies, for example in an MPLS network? Regards, Greg On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 8:55 AM Giuseppe Fioccola <giuseppe.fioccola= 40huawei....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > Hi Aijun, > > Thanks for the support. > > Regarding your question, I think we can clarify this point in the next > version. If a PCE instantiates a path on the PCC with an IFIT capability > enabled, it is supposed that there are at least two nodes (e.g. starting > and ending node) which support it. But if nodes on the path do not support > some capabilities, it is not a big issue. Indeed, both Alternate Marking > and IOAM documents specify that nodes that do not support a specific > functionality will forward the packet without any changes to the data > fields and they are simply not considered in the measurement. > > > > Regards, > > > > Giuseppe > > > > > > *From:* wang...@chinatelecom.cn <wang...@chinatelecom.cn> > *Sent:* Friday, July 1, 2022 11:26 AM > *To:* 'Dhruv Dhody' <d...@dhruvdhody.com>; pce@ietf.org > *Cc:* draft-chen-pce-pcep-i...@ietf.org > *Subject:* 答复: WG Adoption of draft-chen-pce-pcep-ifit-06 > > > > Hi, All: > > > > I support its adoption. > > > > One questions to the authors: > > Is it enough that only the headend support the defined iFIT capabilities? > What’s the procedures when the nodes on the LSP/SR path doesn’t support > the defined iFIT capabilities? > > > > Aijun Wang > > China Telecom > > > > *发件人**:* Dhruv Dhody [mailto:d...@dhruvdhody.com <d...@dhruvdhody.com>] > *发送时间:* 2022年6月24日 16:59 > *收件人:* pce@ietf.org > *抄送:* draft-chen-pce-pcep-i...@ietf.org > *主题:* WG Adoption of draft-chen-pce-pcep-ifit-06 > > > > Hi WG, > > This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-chen-pce-pcep-ifit-06. > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-pce-pcep-ifit/ > > > > Should this draft be adopted by the PCE WG? Please state your reasons - > Why / Why not? What needs to be fixed before or after adoption? Are you > willing to work on this draft? Review comments should be posted to the list. > > Please respond by Monday 11th July 2022. > > > > Please be more vocal during WG polls! > > Thanks! > Dhruv & Julien > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce >
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
