Re: [Bier] Poll for NVO3 WG adoption and IPR call for draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-ooam-header-03

[David Mozes <[e-mail]>]

F Greg ,
1) I am aware that you are aiming it to other WG  rather than only NVO3
That  way you have to be focused on the common parts  which is  the OAM related  data  and the OAM mechanism.
You can come with requirements for the encapsulation protocols. However you should let them to deal with how to encap the OAM  and not redesign them yourself .
2) I am confusing since you with one hand speaking on the entire OAM  spectrum ,but from the other hand you bring just the active OAM to the discussion with me .
So what is the scope ?
3) I think I made my points already , I will lets other to comments

Thx
David

from: Greg Mirsky [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2017 11:57 PM
To: David Mozes <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Cc: Fioccola Giuseppe <[e-mail]>; Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) <[e-mail]>; NVO3 <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Poll for NVO3 WG adoption and IPR call for draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-ooam-header-03

Hi David,
please find my notes in-line tagged GIM2>>.

Regards,
Greg

On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 12:32 AM, David Mozes <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Greg ,
I have a lot to say on what you write below , but let put the discussion in the right content.
The main thing is:
I think yours work and the OAM design team should be focus to define the OAM related data and  the OAM mechanism and there is a lot to do on this area .and try to make it uniform on all the diffenet encapsulations (NVO3,BEIR,SFC) and not dealing with the encapsulation itself. By this you mixed all things up and we will achieve nothing .
GIM2>>  I feel that you assume that the proposed solution is for NVO3 only and thus had not thought about SFC and BIER. Dave Dolson had pointed out that the proposed solution is beneficial for SFC.


Specifically:
1)The extension header (container) concept was discussed on the encap design team . the content was to make VXLN-GPE extendable (While it is not by adding NSH  header to it and was rejected because of the bytes overhead (less bytes than your proposal).
Now you like to take encap protocol with build  in extension and add to it extension header ?  what we will do with other extensions like security add extension header as well  ? This doesn’t make sense and not needed in all the cases
GIM2>> What are these cases that don't require active OAM?
2) the total header length on the base header is important and help for parsing in all the cases especially when you don’t like to deal with the extensions .
3) 8 bytes overhead is important
GIM2>> To be precise, if I look at TLV-based approach then the difference is, at most, 4 bytes.
4)and adding ether type to the parsing graph is costly and can complicate things especially if you need to parse options(TLV)  before
GIM2>> What EtherType? Who says that active OAM must be combined with TLVs? The benefit, in my opinion, of using Overlay Associated Channel, is that it is self-contained and processing can be offloaded once the packet was identified as OAC packet.

Thx
David

From: Greg Mirsky [mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>]
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2017 10:44 PM

To: David Mozes <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: Fioccola Giuseppe <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; NVO3 <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Poll for NVO3 WG adoption and IPR call for draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-ooam-header-03

Hi David,
thank you for your detailed follow-up comments. Please find my notes in-line and tagged GIM>>.

Regards,
Greg

On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 10:54 AM, David Mozes <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi Greg  ,
PSB

From: Greg Mirsky [mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>]
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2017 2:23 AM
To: David Mozes <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: Fioccola Giuseppe <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; NVO3 <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Poll for NVO3 WG adoption and IPR call for draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-ooam-header-03

Hi David,
thank you for sharing your opinion.
Could you please clarify your position. You propose to use extensions/options for end-to-end active OAM?
David> yes
 Let us look at proactive continuity check between NVEs. Why you think a middlebox needs to be aware of the OAM payload?
I believe that a transient NVO3 node should not look into payload if it is not addressed to it at all.
David> Are you limit the header just for proactive OAM ?  so change the draft to include just that . On the current  draft I see all kinds of OAM
GIM>> I want to point that the draft introduces Associated Channel for an overlay network. Associated Channel may be used for signalling or OAM. OAM methods enable operators to perform Fault Management and Performance Monitoring. Among functions required to perform comprehensive Fault Management are:

  *   failure detection, usually detection of Loss of Continuity but may include Mis-connection defect as well for connection-oriented network;
  *   defect localization;
  *   Alarm Indication Signal;
  *   Remote Defect Indication.
Depending on the requirements towards resiliency and restoration, Protection Switchover Coordination protocol may be required.
Performance Measurement usually supports the following:

  *   one-way and two-way Packet Loss measurement;
  *   one-way and two-way Packet Delay measurement;
  *   Synthetic Loss Measurement.
Service Activation Protocol, as part of active OAM toolset, usually combines OAM functions from FM and PM operations.
The goal of Overlay OAM work, as I understand, is to create common set of OAM protocols that supports all of listed above FM and PM operations. I see such set as combination of active, hybrid and passive OAM methods. I believe that the draft states that clearly. The proactive OAM is usually used to perform monitor network for defects and performance degradation. On-demand OAM tools may be used to localize the defects.

> While  I agree with you regarding  Middle box and proactive OAM .The same can be achieve with the protocol extensions
Thus I don't agree that the requirement you refer to is applicable to use of active OAM.
David> I think if the WG decide on NVO3 encap protocol that include  extension (Like GUE and Geneve) we have to use the build in extensions for such protocol and not innovate  extra header  that use for protocols without extensions.
GIM>> I question your assumption that use of variable length header mandates how OAM, active OAM, must be implemented. And since some networks choose to use fixed size header, using Overlay Associated Channel header with multiplexed Overlay OAM functionality appears, in my opinion, as common solution for either type of overlay encapsulation.

David
Greg

On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 11:19 AM, David Mozes <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi ,
I am not supporting the adoption
I think while the working group decided on Geneve as the encap protocol

This OAM need to be via one of the extensions/options  the protocol   is supporting!

This header also violate the number 1 requirements from the extensions/options
That node/middlbox  don not  need to be part of the extensions/ option can jump directly  to the overlay by reading the base header length only

Thx
David

From: nvo3 [mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>] On Behalf Of Fioccola Giuseppe
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2017 5:40 PM
To: Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; NVO3 <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: [nvo3] R: Poll for NVO3 WG adoption and IPR call for draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-ooam-header-03

Hi All,
I have read the draft and support its adoption.

Regards,

Giuseppe

Da: nvo3 [mailto:[e-mail]] Per conto di Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)
Inviato: venerdì 31 marzo 2017 17:35
A: NVO3; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Oggetto: [nvo3] Poll for NVO3 WG adoption and IPR call for draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-ooam-header-03

This email begins a two week poll for adoption of draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-ooam-header-03 in the NVO3 working group.

Please review the draft and send any comments to the NVO3 list.
Please also indicate whether you support adoption of the draft as an NVO3 working group document.

Simultaneously, we are also poling for any IPR that may apply to the draft.

Authors and contributors, are you aware of any IPR that applies to this draft?

If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details)?

If you are listed as a document author or contributor, please respond to
this email stating of whether or not you are aware of any relevant
IPR. The response needs to be sent to the NVO3 WG mailing list. The
document will not advance to the next stage until a response
has been received from each author and each contributor.

This poll closes on Friday 14th April 2017.

Regards

Matthew and Sam
Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua distruzione, Grazie.

This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privileged information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying, printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and any attachments and advise the sender by return e-mail, Thanks.
[rispetta l'ambiente]Rispetta l'ambiente. Non stampare questa mail se non è necessario.