Re: [Detnet] Regarding the model for Active OAM packet
Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Sat, 22 September 2018 05:01 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 48C6C1277BB; Fri, 21 Sep 2018 22:01:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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] 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 5nNG6hkI1hID; Fri, 21 Sep 2018 22:01:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-x12f.google.com (mail-lf1-x12f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12f]) (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 4840F130DD8; Fri, 21 Sep 2018 22:01:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-x12f.google.com with SMTP id b12-v6so5378826lfa.4; Fri, 21 Sep 2018 22:01:09 -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=ECxXSFLLtJfG1WF9JgLbQNVpxWy400+iD5hyqLV6NZU=; b=mBM119z1esqjB6+arbHEUHyiTUizDuouayUmosTdx80Z8fzNzIy4GN7P2lj23e2DmW yGlv1jKJLZBjiJlolG5pzYnRzazk8E9QK1iB/+WZ1tXFIZJgeep8ey7a82Y41wCTp6lP XYxP2OtDyOA5fV2r22O2Ip74ey/SahNRrPI4O2TZIs5udyCij3E7xFFYzPqSRrYKfK3c Rni9SLm2cz//FYyy4moL1+6bveenIWN74X3dPH7zGOpk4iB9GZh7Pn5p8R2ZiacxwgQE WjKhxX/fTJXfog27sUAjLyKxaGMQhaQGzT9K75rXouD4aJw7PIQR45LZoh4xbrzClGra HRHw==
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=ECxXSFLLtJfG1WF9JgLbQNVpxWy400+iD5hyqLV6NZU=; b=psrlwWytL9p9iYnkkBEm0+oepz1wtVJpH6gDMeC4lwnWjjS8M3yQyC26RS4MwzOsS6 n5Hg0M7MTj+rMWoj2gHCDUTtDZxZMO7FJrajnd6GMycIBop1uEoQywZmGMaDNez1gAR/ +2/HX5NMCAl7R7ZAIe7qMqxqEkA/gldxvKtonl4xSwN/3EWQpjFHwDy86uKc75WjIsG2 JCoIyz3xWtUZAMCE4HHaMFSV/N8ZFLQy/y8na87HQJ/REDH1JaQMFV8CwZfEujgURqWE USkI6RxkGPm4p6XUjJpCDLDk855GZUSGOGQEx5W02o8520ogAfscIN4O1QQM1+UhWD0Z grgQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APzg51Bc1xXjH9MJldcTX9oMH2KFHWl+AYoV+hxaTkJCAWOr6NuRvMW7 oj0knwAV+0N9oACXo3/qJbZuZXM/lP78LNo6uas=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ANB0VdY21DyvylzfFgHfTEQNeF0M/p+p0UAlaA6rAxzE1lj9dbJHdEdhgg26AzzE847SGEyA/K21A6ZEdyQWVLYX0cc=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:735d:: with SMTP id o90-v6mr456831lfc.45.1537592467155; Fri, 21 Sep 2018 22:01:07 -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> <F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE292677F9A@dggeml530-mbs.china.huawei.com> <cdfbdcba-af1b-4ab6-9c7d-bd2960af7f01@pi.nu> <F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE29267813A@dggeml530-mbs.china.huawei.com> <a5f4296d-9fda-b80c-fdef-31f676941afc@pi.nu> <CA+RyBmWCmLL6UQnQbFbd_-dUtN4ieS5SBU9eeE9q4b7pmD3YrA@mail.gmail.com> <8054e899-018e-e0a8-c458-0ba092de05fc@pi.nu>
In-Reply-To: <8054e899-018e-e0a8-c458-0ba092de05fc@pi.nu>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2018 22:00:53 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmUENvEb1+4Q2GhqgK3BsetqJjT9DHEia3iQBqqPC-0SXg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
Cc: DetNet WG <detnet@ietf.org>, Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>, János Farkas <Janos.Farkas@ericsson.com>, detnet-chairs@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d06e6705766ea407"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/gtH-rJNKQXo26JDk-7C643pTqxo>
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: Sat, 22 Sep 2018 05:01:14 -0000
Hi Loa, as I understand, for consistency of using GAL. PW ACH preceded GAL, which primarily for LSP OAM. Regards, Greg On Fri, Sep 21, 2018, 21:49 Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> wrote: > Greg, > > If ACH is self-identifying, why do we ever need the GAL? > > /Loa > > On 2018-09-21 23:23, Greg Mirsky wrote: > > Hi Loa, > > you've asked how a node identifies that the payload is ACH, not CW. As I > > understand RFC 4385, it is by the value of the first nibble that follows > > BoS label. ACH assigned value 0b0001, PW CW - 0b0000. 0b0100 defines > > IPv4, and 0b0110 - IPv6. > > > > Regards, > > Greg > > > > On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 3:55 AM Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu > > <mailto:loa@pi.nu>> wrote: > > > > Mach, > > > > inline please > > > > On 2018-09-21 18:31, Mach Chen wrote: > > > Hi Loa, > > > > > > New ACH type is fine, this is also needed for DetNet OAM, IMHO. > > The crucial here is how to "cheat" the replication/elimination nodes > > that an OAM packet is a "normal" DetNet packet, then they can > > replicate/eliminate the OAM packets as normal DetNet packets. > > Otherwise, it needs to introduce additional replication/elimination > > processing for the DetNet OAM packets. > > > > > > To support this, I suggest to use ACH without GAL (of cause, a > > new ACH-type) for DetNet OAM (as bellow) and the "reserved" field > > carries sequence number information, the "ACH" can be considered as > > the d-CW by the replication/elimination nodes. > > > +----------+ > > > |S-Label | > > > +----------+ > > > |ACH | > > > +----------+ > > > | Payload| > > > +----------+ > > > > > what info do a node use to understand that the ACH is an ACH?? > > > > /Loa > > > If GAL is used ( the stack as below), additional processing has > > to be introduced at the replication/elimination nodes, because they > > have to parse GAL+ACH to decide how to process. That means, the OAM > > packets will have different replication/elimination process from the > > normal DetNet packets. > > > > > > +----------+ > > > |S-Label | > > > +----------+ > > > |GAL | > > > +----------+ > > > |ACH | > > > +----------+ > > > | Payload| > > > +----------+ > > > > > > Best regards, > > > Mach > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: Loa Andersson [mailto:loa@pi.nu <mailto:loa@pi.nu>] > > >> Sent: Friday, September 21, 2018 4:49 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, > > >> > > >> Admittedly I'm not up to speed on DetNet OAM, but ..... > > >> > > >> The ACH is specified like this: > > >> > > >> 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|Version| Reserved | Channel Type > > | > > >> > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > >> > > >> you can define 65k ACH-types, what stops you from defining a ACH > > channel > > >> type for DetNet OAM, then define that the structure of the > > following octets > > >> in a way that you see fit (like (yes I'm inventing as I type, > > more thoughts > > >> should go into to this): > > >> > > >> 0 1 2 3 > > >> 0123 45678901 234567890123 45678901 > > >> +----+--------+------------+--------+ > > >> | R | LEN | relevant info | > > >> +----+--------+------------+--------+ > > >> |0000| d-CW | > > >> +----+--------+------------+--------+ > > >> | more relevant info | > > >> +----+--------+------------+--------+ > > >> > > >> > > >> What is that I'm missing? > > >> > > >> /Loa > > >> > > >> On 2018-09-21 14:22, Mach Chen wrote: > > >>> Hi Loa, > > >>> > > >>> Can you clarify how a new ACH-type can address the problem? > > >>> > > >>> Best regards, > > >>> Mach > > >>> > > >>>> -----Original Message----- > > >>>> From: Loa Andersson [mailto:loa@pi.nu <mailto:loa@pi.nu>] > > >>>> Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2018 6:14 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, > > >>>> > > >>>> 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 > > <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 > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > 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 > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet > > > > -- > > > 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