IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com> Thu, 09 February 2017 19:31 UTC

Return-Path: <cpignata@cisco.com>
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 42F2F129C71; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 11:31:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.502
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.502 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 nNFHE-3a3HWh; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 11:31:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CBA38127077; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 11:30:59 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3064; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1486668659; x=1487878259; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=lly+WVQR8WXCfDYznSBPOlS3TyOXG9p6R7+6ITjbFhE=; b=SyQJz0/1u0LndQ8JZeHC/PDHLGjqCR8JWCjMscGCXQX+9U8lo6DM9AXx d3NRd6fnJgy7CqXHt6fUU8DQl/+1B7eqPg/HSwZTEKBZy0AT3vqN3sN12 f2qdV3EEnSCvYG4exR/w7rPIxqHcZw+5ouy00Z9jOWKjFnvhUc2NPnMKe M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AkBQAkwpxY/40NJK1dGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBBwEBAQEBg1FhgQkHg1Kbcx+IDI0qgg0shXYCGoJRQBcBAgEBAQEBAQFiKIRpAQEBAwEjEUUFCwIBCBgCAiYCAgIfERUQAgQOBYlcAw0IDrAIgiWHOg2EDgEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARgFgQuFQYIFCIJiglGCAxeCby6CMQWVVIVkOgGGbocMhBmBe4UXiXOKNYhfASABNn5PFU0BhjB1AYhugQwBAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.35,137,1484006400"; d="scan'208";a="178805268"
Received: from alln-core-8.cisco.com ([173.36.13.141]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 09 Feb 2017 19:30:59 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-001.cisco.com (xch-rtp-001.cisco.com [64.101.220.141]) by alln-core-8.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v19JUwoC001356 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 9 Feb 2017 19:30:58 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-020.cisco.com (64.101.220.160) by XCH-RTP-001.cisco.com (64.101.220.141) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 14:30:57 -0500
Received: from xch-rtp-020.cisco.com ([64.101.220.160]) by XCH-RTP-020.cisco.com ([64.101.220.160]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 14:30:57 -0500
From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>
To: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [Ioam] Internal WG Review: In-situ OAM (ioam)
Thread-Index: AQHSgjmziLYbR6WLQk6B61NU2m1JJqFf5E4AgAECTQCAAFm/gIAAGdcAgAALP4A=
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2017 19:30:57 +0000
Message-ID: <A011008B-F1A7-4EE0-8693-E66471B456E4@cisco.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> <4f16e222-97e4-6f87-e1a3-79115db8f355@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4f16e222-97e4-6f87-e1a3-79115db8f355@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.117.115.61]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <32829AB4B06BFC49A6DCD7545E44386C@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ioam/HJhXorU0Cig1CrHEfHt9ZeGm1sc>
Cc: "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com>, The IAB <iab@iab.org>, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>, "ioam@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
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: Thu, 09 Feb 2017 19:31:01 -0000

Hi, Stewart,

Many thanks for the comments, please see inline.

> On Feb 9, 2017, at 1:50 PM, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 09/02/2017 17:18, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) wrote:
>> Passive means ‘solely by observation and without modification to the packet’ (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-active-passive-06#section-3.6).
> 
> Carlos, that is not quit where we are going with passive. We use packet marking to batch the packets for loss measurement, and we are planning to trigger delay/jitter measurement through marking.
> 

I’ll follow down this tangent for a bit. 

I understand and as you know I’m well aware of the (alternate) packet marking techniques and different methods.

However, the *current* definition is quite unambiguous:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7799#section-3.6
“
3.6.  Passive Methods

   Passive Methods of Measurement are:

   o  based solely on observations of an undisturbed and unmodified
      packet stream of interest (in other words, the method of
      measurement MUST NOT add, change, or remove packets or fields or
      change field values anywhere along the path).
“

Since both those datapoints are rooted in IPPM, I’d suggest working through the definitions on IPPM and how marking fits (since it is not only on observation points)

Now, bringing this back to the relevance of the In-situ OAM (ioam) charter, my only point is that In-situ OAM is neither passive nor active.

> As you know marking is much easier in MPLS that IP.
> 
> I think the key distinguisher is really that in-situ is about embedding OAM meta-data in user data traffic.

This is a good point.

I agree.

I believe this is already clear in the charter, all the way from the very first sentence:

“ It is based on telemetry information which is embedded within live data packets.”

Do you believe this is not clear in the charter? Do you have specific suggestions or concrete recommendations that can improve the charter text?

Thanks!

> 
> - Stewart


—
Carlos Pignataro, carlos@cisco.com

“Sometimes I use big words that I do not fully understand, to make myself sound more photosynthesis."

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email