Subject: RE: Which use cases are using direct EH insertion?

From: "Frank Brockners (fbrockne)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2016 16:47:38 +0000

Hemant,

sorry for the delay – please see inline…

From: Hemant Singh [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Mittwoch, 27. Juli 2016 14:57
To: Shwetha Bhandari (shwethab) <[email-masked]>
Cc: Frank Brockners (fbrockne) <[email-masked]>; Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]; 6man WG <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Which use cases are using direct EH insertion?

If section 3.1.2 related to ingress, we have text that says "insertion of the in-band OAM header is enabled at the required edge nodes by means of configuration."  However, the same text does not exist in the egress section in 3.1.4.  Why not add common text for ingress/egress before any of these two sections start?
...FB: Great suggestion. We’ll incorportate it into the next revision.

How does classification of flows signal to the egress router to strip options?
...FB: Removal is a configuration option. An egress node will be configured to strip in-band OAM information from all traffic, i.e. there isn’t a need for specific flow classification unless you have flow specific features (e.g. sequence numbering for a specific set of flows).

Regards, Frank

thanks,

Hemant

On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 1:20 AM, Shwetha Bhandari (shwethab) <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

The decision to add/remove the HbyH options/header is based on classification of flows and/or interfaces as entering/leaving the domain. In our current implementation of In-band OAM (in fd.io<https://gerrit.fd.io/r/gitweb?p=vpp.git;a=tree> ) it is done by pushing this configuration on the domain's perimeter nodes.