Dear All, a number of drafts that define encapsulation of iOAM data for the various overlay networks had been presented and requested adoption by the IPPM WG. I have one scenario to discuss:
- all proposed encapsulations of iOAM data use the field that explicitly indicates the type of the payload that immediately follows the overlay header. In all proposals iOAM data identified either as End-to-end iOAM or Hop-by-hop iOAM; - iOAM data uses its own shim that includes the Next Protocol field. The value of the Next protocol field identifies the type of the payload, the user payload; - now consider the situation when a node in the overlay network that doesn't support iOAM receives an iOAM data, i.e., doesn't recognize iOAM payload types. The node will drop the iOAM data and the user packet with it. If my analysis is correct, then here are a couple of questions: - how useful is the technology that requires an upgrade of the whole network in order to work; - should we return the discussion of iOAM data encapsulation in overlay networks to the WGs that define these overlay networks. Regards, Greg
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
