Re: [Detnet] Regarding the model for Active OAM packet
Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Fri, 21 September 2018 15:30 UTC
Return-Path: <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1630130E7A; Fri, 21 Sep 2018 08:30:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g4Jh6BgsBb4u; Fri, 21 Sep 2018 08:30:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-x133.google.com (mail-lf1-x133.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC16F12777C; Fri, 21 Sep 2018 08:30:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-x133.google.com with SMTP id v17-v6so7925906lfe.3; Fri, 21 Sep 2018 08:30:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=YRvU3sZPl7qfl2x9UuWKgcI5NgAx4YB8wxSZwC5fBzA=; b=m78ZVk2IQCg9bl99h5bmkm4Atox4w5BWZBeIYKnt0RsosB9/1dKRqn6H0BJaSk1BhE C9Iu2QlAt/QXENSe+dB7IfZl73x8x8yn0CkoEzHK7nS/kXMlh5j1KHE9oM4VW/TvgrRm jaKUusH5hWWciLSkIs6YVLuKzndLH4Vyssun32lJSfMzh9n/XBauUNnM813zgxLfUola FAPCCD6tU6QNaP87TVP+JkNtfHaEfJkAQYZNP4baviHvf0pYj1D3NFLkiN/tVrEZb4jk afyORPMVZus97EpRRZ4QQCjdzumCUHsnBMIkAZZfCP2nX1kxFGhaRHLxVqqkKEDwsp38 /DVw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=YRvU3sZPl7qfl2x9UuWKgcI5NgAx4YB8wxSZwC5fBzA=; b=HO2/vdre2Q+xlCGTeBK+jZaAzhhLNNXlKvjRAb6qySklTHQBJU4bKVIg9KAbp9Qig1 j/GIoYnG6l17nmB5fAQnjAwMxRAxjAvZOPMyxcSW2YHZ0CsYseJIxuDvQ7r5/3OYXr7a pYS9EKYy6M4RnSuXUgmGg/x6GMD/VrV2dcA6lL1u4ykDHZBiRmEYSRbICD2X4zE0AauV XJhg5PxAIr/yncSVug7QNUlE5kyEqSZAjOFYd/afDq+ZitTEpPbYc51N5EnBbkcbyCc4 s1LHwldFcNpVbRgMrmXi2Mh9GiFBkYhB9SXMSG4poBCrVY6HB9S9mHWmPZE95rRo5NOA 2llw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APzg51BLL/KKrckS7rNSHB38Ie81G60O2tE1qAa+1uF1qbPVmQy23X+v OY6u/3TColPcsLC87W51lUjMx6lg1mNhRGeUYWs=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ANB0VdY2mjC/bXI/H7aod37GQH7oR0wJzDdgMlQrxf1o5hoEng+2Y2fcELNv2Z/RDjz9cYsc5m3As/t2ZGHKWbBCdbs=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:1346:: with SMTP id j67-v6mr20487650lfi.93.1537543825804; Fri, 21 Sep 2018 08:30:25 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE29267092D@dggeml530-mbs.china.huawei.com> <CA+RyBmX29+Q9y3dXM-PqYm-Nu8KtjYZDs6a-fh_rW5hacSpyRg@mail.gmail.com> <F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE292672CBB@dggeml530-mbs.china.huawei.com> <d4e45e7d-1001-be64-9ff0-f9ea9a882b77@pi.nu> <F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE292673B40@dggeml530-mbs.china.huawei.com> <1e141c08-421a-3698-ac5f-02b597d978ea@pi.nu> <CA+RyBmWXMTN0N81QAAQ9jg9=5hKKe7kdrxGyCO8boBMBZfCUqQ@mail.gmail.com> <cfde4176-f611-7fcd-cfa3-50fa7ad4d611@pi.nu>
In-Reply-To: <cfde4176-f611-7fcd-cfa3-50fa7ad4d611@pi.nu>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2018 08:30:14 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmWhXewYLbRNZXZ2MTdubh9bgNRzm9P9Z0LAbP5nd2Vsjg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
Cc: Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>, DetNet WG <detnet@ietf.org>, János Farkas <Janos.Farkas@ericsson.com>, detnet-chairs@ietf.org, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" <matthew.bocci@nokia.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009050f205766351e9"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/6f8kJW2iAVCFqmtjDPrXVADkemo>
Subject: Re: [Detnet] Regarding the model for Active OAM packet
X-BeenThere: detnet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions on Deterministic Networking BoF and Proposed WG <detnet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/detnet>, <mailto:detnet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/detnet/>
List-Post: <mailto:detnet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:detnet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet>, <mailto:detnet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2018 15:30:32 -0000
Hi Loa, DetNet OAM, in my view, is not another OAM function but includes FM and PM OAM functions we have in any networking layer, e.g., IP or MPLS. I believe we must have on-demand and proactive Fault Management OAM, as well as Performance Monitoring OAM tool(s). Also, because of PREF, on-demand OAM must be extended. Hence, my thought that BFD, RFC 6374, etc. ACH types may be re-used on DetNet layer. Regards, Greg On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 3:44 AM Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> wrote: > Greg, > > On 2018-09-20 20:55, Greg Mirsky wrote: > > Hi Loa, > > I agree that we can define new ACH Type that will have Sequence Number > > immediately following the ACH. > > OK! > > > But then we'll need to re-define number > > of Types, e.g., BFD, RFC 6374, etc. Or I misunderstood > your suggestion.this probably > > > This probably the key, why do you need to redefine? > > /Loa > > Regards, > > Greg > > > > On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 3:13 AM Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu > > <mailto:loa@pi.nu>> wrote: > > > > Mach, > > > > I'd like Stewart or Matthew to look at this, but as I understand it > it > > is possible to define a new ACH-type that can do exactly what you > want. > > > > /Loa > > > > On 2018-09-20 17:58, Mach Chen wrote: > > > Loa, > > > > > > GAL is just an OAM indicator, the problem here is that when do > > DetNet OAM, the d-CW will replaced by ACH or by GAL+ACH. No matter > > which way is used, to support the replication or elimination, there > > has to be a sequence number filed. But ACH (as its current defined) > > does not have such a field. > > > > > > My suggestion is to use the reserved field of ACH to carry > > sequence number of OAM packet, and for those replication or > > elimination nodes, they do not have to differentiate whether a > > packet is OAM packet or a normal packet, they could just treat the > > right 28 bits of the ACH as the sequence number ( or treat the ACH > > as the d-CW), then both OAM and replication/elimination can be > > supported. > > > > > > Best regards, > > > Mach > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: detnet [mailto:detnet-bounces@ietf.org > > <mailto:detnet-bounces@ietf.org>] On Behalf Of Loa Andersson > > >> Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2018 3:21 PM > > >> To: Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com > > <mailto:mach.chen@huawei.com>>; Greg Mirsky > > >> <gregimirsky@gmail.com <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>> > > >> Cc: DetNet WG <detnet@ietf.org <mailto:detnet@ietf.org>>; János > > Farkas > > >> <Janos.Farkas@ericsson.com <mailto:Janos.Farkas@ericsson.com>>; > > detnet-chairs@ietf.org <mailto:detnet-chairs@ietf.org> > > >> Subject: Re: [Detnet] Regarding the model for Active OAM packet > > >> > > >> Mach, > > >> > > >> If I understand you correctly this is for an LSP in an MPLS > > network, can you > > >> help me understand why GAL does not enough. Given that there > > might be > > >> some minor extensions to GAL because of replication and > elimination. > > >> > > >> /Loa > > >> > > >> On 2018-09-19 14:31, Mach Chen wrote: > > >>> Hi Greg, > > >>> > > >>> Indeed, there is no DetNet Associated Channel defined in > > >>> draft-ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls for now, I think there should be. > I > > >>> also assume that PW ACH will be used for DetNet OAM. > > >>> > > >>> Assume that PW ACH will be used for DetNet OAM and the reserved > > filed > > >>> of the PW ACH will be used to carry sequence number for OAM > packet. > > >>> But > > >>> for PREF, a tricky way is to treat the “Version”+ “Reserved” > + > > >>> ”Channel type” as the Sequence number, the replication or > > elimination > > >>> nodes do not need to differentiate whether it is a d-CW or a > > PW ACH . > > >>> This way, OAM can be supported without additional processing > > and states. > > >>> > > >>> 0 1 > > 2 3 > > >>> > > >>> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 > > 7 8 9 0 > > >>> 1 > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > >>> > > >>> |0 0 0 1|Verion | Reserved | Channel Type > > >>> | > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > >>> > > >>> Regarding sequence number, there are two ways to generate the > > >> sequence > > >>> number IMHO: 1) generated by the edge node, but it may need to > > >>> configure the start number, or 2) copied from the > > application-flow (if > > >>> there is). If the WG agree with this, the model can be updated > > reflect > > >>> this. > > >>> > > >>> Best regards, > > >>> > > >>> Mach > > >>> > > >>> *From:*Greg Mirsky [mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com > > <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>] > > >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 19, 2018 11:29 AM > > >>> *To:* Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com > > <mailto:mach.chen@huawei.com>> > > >>> *Cc:* János Farkas <Janos.Farkas@ericsson.com > > <mailto:Janos.Farkas@ericsson.com>>; DetNet WG > > >>> <detnet@ietf.org <mailto:detnet@ietf.org>>; > > detnet-chairs@ietf.org <mailto:detnet-chairs@ietf.org> > > >>> *Subject:* Re: Regarding the model for Active OAM packet > > >>> > > >>> Hi Mach, > > >>> > > >>> thank you for your attention to my comment and the most > expedient > > >> response. > > >>> > > >>> I don't find the DetNet Associated Channel defined in > > >>> draft-ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls and thus I assumed that OAM > > packets that > > >>> follow the data packet encapsulation defined in that draft use > > PW ACH > > >>> as defined in section 5 RFC 4385: True, it includes 8 bits-long > > >>> Reserved field that may be defined as OAM Sequence Number but > that > > >> had > > >>> not been discussed. One is certain, existing nodes do not check > the > > >>> Reserved field. And without a field to hold the sequence > > number, PREF > > >>> will not handle the OAM packets. Another question, additional > > >>> processing and amount of state introduced in the fast path by > > the fact > > >>> that OAM's Sequence Number will have different length and > > location in > > >>> d-CW (differentiating cases by the first nibble). > > >>> > > >>> Now, if we step back from DetnNet in MPLS data plane > encapsulation, > > >>> why the control-word, as I understand, is configurable? I think > > that > > >>> the Sequence Number is not configurable, nor the first nibble. > > What do > > >>> you think? > > >>> > > >>> Regards, > > >>> > > >>> Greg > > >>> > > >>> On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 7:48 PM Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com > > <mailto:mach.chen@huawei.com> > > >>> <mailto:mach.chen@huawei.com <mailto:mach.chen@huawei.com>>> > wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Hi Greg, > > >>> > > >>> The MPLS DetNet header is defined as below: > > >>> > > >>> grouping mpls-detnet-header { > > >>> description > > >>> "The MPLS DetNet encapsulation header > information."; > > >>> leaf service-label { > > >>> type uint32; > > >>> mandatory true; > > >>> description > > >>> "The service label of the DetNet header."; > > >>> } > > >>> leaf control-word { > > >>> type uint32; > > >>> mandatory true; > > >>> description > > >>> "The control word of the DetNet header."; > > >>> } > > >>> } > > >>> > > >>> Although do not consider Active OAM when design the above > > >>> mpls-denet-header, seems that it can cover Active OAM > > case as well. > > >>> No matter a normal DetNet packet or an Active OAM packet, > > there > > >>> should be a CW field, just as defined above. > > >>> > > >>> For normal DetNet packets, the CW is the d-CW as defined > > in the > > >>> draft-ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls. > > >>> > > >>> For OAM packets, the CW is the "DetNet Associated Channel". > > >>> > > >>> Best regards, > > >>> Mach > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > -----Original Message----- > > >>> > From: detnet [mailto:detnet-bounces@ietf.org > > <mailto:detnet-bounces@ietf.org> <mailto:detnet- <mailto:detnet-> > > >> bounces@ietf.org <mailto:bounces@ietf.org>>] On Behalf > > >>> Of Greg Mirsky > > >>> > Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2018 3:17 AM > > >>> > To: János Farkas <Janos.Farkas@ericsson.com > > <mailto:Janos.Farkas@ericsson.com> > > >> <mailto:Janos.Farkas@ericsson.com > > <mailto:Janos.Farkas@ericsson.com>>> > > >>> > Cc: DetNet WG <detnet@ietf.org <mailto:detnet@ietf.org> > > <mailto:detnet@ietf.org <mailto:detnet@ietf.org>>>; detnet- > > >> chairs@ietf.org <mailto:chairs@ietf.org> > > >>> <mailto:detnet-chairs@ietf.org > > <mailto:detnet-chairs@ietf.org>> > > >>> > Subject: Re: [Detnet] WG adoption poll > > draft-geng-detnet-conf-yang > > >>> > > > >>> > Hi Janos, et. al, > > >>> > the mpls-detnet-header container is based on the > > solution described in > > >>> > draft-ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls. Analysis of active SFC > > OAM in the > > >> proposed > > >>> > MPLS data plane solution in draft-mirsky-detnet-oam > > points to the > > >> potential > > >>> > problem as result the fact that OAM packet doesn't > > include d-CW. I > > >> believe > > >>> > that this question should be discussed and, if we agree > > on the problem > > >>> > statement, properly resolved. Until then, I do not > > support the adoption > > >> of > > >>> > the model that may not be capable to support active OAM. > > >>> > > > >>> > Regards, > > >>> > Greg > > >>> > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 12:03 PM Janos Farkas > > >> <Janos.Farkas@ericsson.com <mailto:Janos.Farkas@ericsson.com> > > <mailto:Janos.Farkas@ericsson.com <mailto:Janos.Farkas@ericsson.com > >>> > > >>> > wrote: > > >>> > > > > >>> > > Dear all, > > >>> > > > > >>> > > This is start of a two week poll on making > > >>> > > draft-geng-detnet-conf-yang-04 a working group > > document. Please > > >> send > > >>> > > email to the list indicating "yes/support" or "no/do > > not support". If > > >>> > > indicating no, please state your reservations with the > > document. If > > >>> > > yes, please also feel free to provide comments you'd > > like to see > > >>> > > addressed once the document is a WG document. > > >>> > > > > >>> > > The poll ends Oct 3. > > >>> > > > > >>> > > Thanks, > > >>> > > János and Lou > > >>> > > > > >>> > > _______________________________________________ > > >>> > > detnet mailing list > > >>> > > detnet@ietf.org <mailto:detnet@ietf.org> > > <mailto:detnet@ietf.org <mailto:detnet@ietf.org>> > > >>> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet > > >>> > > > >>> > _______________________________________________ > > >>> > detnet mailing list > > >>> > detnet@ietf.org <mailto:detnet@ietf.org> > > <mailto:detnet@ietf.org <mailto:detnet@ietf.org>> > > >>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> _______________________________________________ > > >>> detnet mailing list > > >>> detnet@ietf.org <mailto:detnet@ietf.org> > > >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet > > >>> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> > > >> > > >> Loa Andersson email: loa@pi.nu > > <mailto:loa@pi.nu> > > >> Senior MPLS Expert > > >> Bronze Dragon Consulting phone: +46 739 81 21 64 > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> detnet mailing list > > >> detnet@ietf.org <mailto:detnet@ietf.org> > > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet > > > _______________________________________________ > > > detnet mailing list > > > detnet@ietf.org <mailto:detnet@ietf.org> > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Loa Andersson email: loa@pi.nu <mailto: > loa@pi.nu> > > Senior MPLS Expert > > Bronze Dragon Consulting phone: +46 739 81 21 64 > > > > -- > > > Loa Andersson email: loa@pi.nu > Senior MPLS Expert > Bronze Dragon Consulting phone: +46 739 81 21 64 >
- [Detnet] Regarding the model for Active OAM packet Mach Chen
- Re: [Detnet] Regarding the model for Active OAM p… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [Detnet] Regarding the model for Active OAM p… Mach Chen
- Re: [Detnet] Regarding the model for Active OAM p… Loa Andersson
- Re: [Detnet] Regarding the model for Active OAM p… Mach Chen
- Re: [Detnet] Regarding the model for Active OAM p… Loa Andersson
- Re: [Detnet] Regarding the model for Active OAM p… Loa Andersson
- Re: [Detnet] Regarding the model for Active OAM p… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [Detnet] Regarding the model for Active OAM p… Mach Chen
- Re: [Detnet] Regarding the model for Active OAM p… Loa Andersson
- Re: [Detnet] Regarding the model for Active OAM p… Mach Chen
- Re: [Detnet] Regarding the model for Active OAM p… Loa Andersson
- Re: [Detnet] Regarding the model for Active OAM p… Loa Andersson
- Re: [Detnet] Regarding the model for Active OAM p… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [Detnet] Regarding the model for Active OAM p… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [Detnet] Regarding the model for Active OAM p… Loa Andersson
- Re: [Detnet] Regarding the model for Active OAM p… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [Detnet] Regarding the model for Active OAM p… Loa Andersson
- Re: [Detnet] Regarding the model for Active OAM p… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [Detnet] Regarding the model for Active OAM p… Mach Chen