Subject: [mpls] Comments on draft-gandhi-spring-ioam-sr-mpls

From: Tarek Saad <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2019 16:20:46 +0000

Hi authors,

Having read through this draft, I have the following comments:

  1.  Is it possible that more than one IOAM encapsulating node tries to insert IOAM header into same packet – e.g. consider hierarchical MPLS LSP(s).. If so, how to handle multiple encapsulating node(s) trying to add IOAM option/data after end of MPLS label stack? If not possible (or not supported), it’d be good to explicitly state this
  2.  It is not clear what Figure 3 is serving in section 4?

Regards,
Tarek

---

From: Rakesh Gandhi <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2019 07:05:12 +0800

Hi Tarek,
Thanks for your review comments. Please see replies below:
1) Yes, there is no need to add multiple indicator/special labels. We will
clarify in the draft.
2) Fig 3 is showing the location of the Path Segment wrt Indicator/special
label (this was a comment on the list).

Thanks,
Rakesh

On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 12:21 AM Tarek Saad <[email-masked]> wrote:

>    1. Is it possible that more than one IOAM encapsulating node tries to
>    insert IOAM header into same packet – e.g. consider hierarchical MPLS
>    LSP(s).. If so, how to handle multiple encapsulating node(s) trying to add
>    IOAM option/data after end of MPLS label stack? If not possible (or not
>    supported), it’d be good to explicitly state this
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>