It need not wait. We would adopt on this list if we adopt in opsawg. And this
work has already seen some discussion on-list today alone. As you say, we have
many of the interest IPFIX crowd here already. It also seems like there is
some IPPM cross-members to give this a proper holistic revi
Dear all,
On 3/19/2024 10:40 AM, thomas.g...@swisscom.com wrote:
Dear Justin, Dear OPSAWG and IPPM working groups
Thanks a lot for the presentation at IPPM. I believe that this work
needs further refinement by defining also IPFIX entities for IOAM
which allow a decomposition of each IOAM dim
Hi Thomas,
By "IOAM dimension fields", are you referring to fields such as ingress/egress
intf id etc in IOAM data? And you are requesting for these fields to be
included to facilitate aggregation by another entity (e.g the aggregating
mediator in RFC7015)? i.e you are not requesting for the IO
Dear Justin, Dear OPSAWG and IPPM working groups
Thanks a lot for the presentation at IPPM. I believe that this work needs
further refinement by defining also IPFIX entities for IOAM which allow a
decomposition of each IOAM dimension fields, thus enabling IPFIX Flow
Aggregation as described in
Hi OPSAWG,
In consultation with Mahesh, I have decided to revert OPSAWG back to two
chairs. I originally increased it to three chairs to give chairing opportunity
and experience to a new individual, but my general view is that most WGs,
except for the largest, function better with two chairs.
