Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Incremental Trace, RemainingLen, unclear behavior #228

Open
IurmanJ opened this issue Jul 31, 2021 · 0 comments
Open

Incremental Trace, RemainingLen, unclear behavior #228

IurmanJ opened this issue Jul 31, 2021 · 0 comments

Comments

@IurmanJ
Copy link
Contributor

IurmanJ commented Jul 31, 2021

In section 5.4.1 "Pre-allocated and Incremental Trace Option-Types" of draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data, I think it's pretty unclear what to do with RemainingLen when dealing with incremental traces. For instance, should the encap node set this (useless?) field to 0 (seems the most logical idea that comes in mind)? Should transit nodes ignore this field? Same reasoning for flags (aka the Overflow bit), which also seems useless with incremental traces, right?

But... previously, it is said the following:

"Incremental Trace-Option:
[...]
They then decrease the remaining length
available to subsequent nodes and adjust the lengths
[...]
"

Which lets one thinking there is also a limitation on the trace size even with incremental traces, and so the RemainingLen field works exactly the same as for the pre-allocated mode.

Maybe should we clarify this part? Could be confusing...

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant