IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ioam] Internal WG Review: In-situ OAM (ioam)

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Fri, 10 February 2017 20:32 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: ioam@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ioam@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D1E8129BB4; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 12:32:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.62
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.62 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 TVgIB8YV2gJm; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 12:32:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (asmtp1.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.248]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A562129BB3; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 12:32:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v1AKWpJ9013876; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 20:32:51 GMT
Received: from 950129200 ([176.241.251.4]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v1AKWhir013809 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 10 Feb 2017 20:32:49 GMT
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: "'Joel M. Halpern'" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
References: <148657872835.4362.4208222446069276322.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAKKJt-cwinU_f+Kgb+PuUfufZdAL788ZyYjd_2o3UCLwE5FJmQ@mail.gmail.com> <5EADB2FC-9112-4C6F-956D-C9B0A7FA405F@cisco.com> <6F7EEE4C-2D31-438E-B672-49FEED30C1A4@cisco.com> <58201ECE-F536-4ADC-98DE-95BCDAC28D31@kuehlewind.net> <0bdcfd0be2c84ffa81b1658af60f084d@XCH-RCD-008.cisco.com> <9826D9EC-E161-48A6-AC5B-EA0C73BFE526@kuehlewind.net> <CAKOuegBJ5Veu7Ff+B7TZNULa3ja3XDuaSkei_EGZ0+hYed=O_w@mail.gmail.com> <49ef4609-0bce-4cfe-98c2-46376de9f1df@joelhalpern.com>
In-Reply-To:
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 20:32:42 -0000
Message-ID: <0cd801d283dc$d9020e00$8b062a00$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQHPa9VlOQLpUKVlo/4ITVNuqPkWhALz7hP3Abnb0PkCgVoGawITALvDApfLV6ACApF05wKZwB35AZARn52g2KFJcIAADceA
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1679-8.1.0.1062-22878.002
X-TM-AS-Result: No--7.472-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--7.472-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: 7ySqCuYCpfgXwe9fvTutcyZm6wdY+F8KE3NxsGztrMtrEoFtNYg0CwaN 5lIAb71zUi3e3BXWmF/DOJYWUVJEC6f0QmPqa4kezNY33yIEF4Zp0hj6DPLcL5wsUqEjZnPr0u5 faGP8ztQ6TvcoucMVb9kVAVb359lcaXCfGZQxX8WeAiCmPx4NwLTrdaH1ZWqCHOI0tZ7A+B36C0 ePs7A07b4iOwQQ4jNib5ID7a3N+gIQxZ7LO9UO+8Hu0kKDpjJwSI+5gnFoZ3M=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ioam/EI7Uv1Jf3HEbfUcfS1PJ3RP1-J8>
Cc: 'The IAB' <iab@iab.org>, iesg@ietf.org, ioam@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ioam] Internal WG Review: In-situ OAM (ioam)
X-BeenThere: ioam@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
List-Id: Discussion on In-Situ OAM <ioam.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ioam>, <mailto:ioam-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ioam/>
List-Post: <mailto:ioam@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ioam-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ioam>, <mailto:ioam-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 20:32:58 -0000

Well, indeed.
 
This is why I was scratching away at whether this is a proposal for a generic
OAM encapsulation.

AFAICS the devil is in the detail of the encapsulation/forwarding/switching
mechanism and a lot of the information that has to be encoded will be different.
So, will this proposal lead to more than a set of TLVs that would be filled out
for different use cases?

It *might* be that it would be more useful to identify the target us cases (i..,
those that people want to build and deploy now) and work on those.

Adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ioam [mailto:ioam-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern
> Sent: 10 February 2017 19:34
> To: Ram Krishnan; Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)
> Cc: Carlos Pignataro (cpignata); Frank Brockners (fbrockne); The IAB;
> iesg@ietf.org; ioam@ietf.org; Alvaro Retana (aretana); Spencer Dawkins at IETF
> Subject: Re: [Ioam] Internal WG Review: In-situ OAM (ioam)
>
> I would be very careful about using this proposal as a justification for
> an iOAM working group.
> it is SFC specific.
> And there are some interesting challenges in the details.
>
> Yours,
> Joel

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email