IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> Thu, 09 February 2017 18:50 UTC

Return-Path: <stewart.bryant@gmail.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 5C12A129580; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 10:50:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 6uviG0hpTUOT; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 10:50:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm0-x22e.google.com (mail-wm0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22e]) (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 9CB291293EE; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 10:50:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id v77so28471110wmv.0; Thu, 09 Feb 2017 10:50:47 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=a+HqQylT9TLLr6X9YCjFXImLAFbe2JERc1MRAkerrmU=; b=oEUJmEc2sdOAhhPQNdKMOM3nSjo0dkC8IGjo1HTdX46zjQrh+psau4p7ab6KS38uIy Cd6Ilby1VsjCk6waXkZOc+QYLEpnh0sjrNa8/CtDVR1yECV1K3+jmydL74scyPF4jsxr V5AvaleZAtfnnpLjYGPvr0WbmfHiTF4E6U5k0L8fXNOICey0hYbaxVCi8DqZ3+TBNGvi l0DiElBYd1knIWmVdttiwKfM/xF7waMUD7n5fiGMUvtL3MJFo5JWdOR9kWVdE0j201+t WJYtgZiqj0i1QfLGGEzl3BIlTcT4K27esRIqpkkUOk2bG6MhVwMQu2KcD+8Gdpb8gfv9 8Nbw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=a+HqQylT9TLLr6X9YCjFXImLAFbe2JERc1MRAkerrmU=; b=ucDxLhC/gSphIj7uOvu8GMdTCF50cC/JKdEvtcsBAmO+OvkW6qnGvEUGrCncUnI6Ee NMe7T2I6gIj9O+H7LLD9jS34Vbq6FgMIM5/SFAwBa2UjPjKtN/cJtOcSmuanwsx8LETo Vi09Y2Y94BWiUenj+IUvivA3A7J9ao2nPlCfELOkYjN4CqkVUFLDlYWUOC9+34yiaq+6 vEPNCwStOo5L4hjFaekaq8mgX0I/240YbNJ6uyDrLxh+OIhLoxOSadNaJwZdemrp2TtZ OJe+rtg3K1X43JNUHGi+H2YKXLiQN56tob6lQdPXBHcQlqOnrNlp8CKKUGbGW5dcNEWE Ey2g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39myr33HyZfqjjSWB51NDXs9PG2VZOrPvY0X0TKS7x38h+iF0ywkYpnvAHXHC6ZPsg==
X-Received: by 10.28.12.68 with SMTP id 65mr24241340wmm.100.1486666245777; Thu, 09 Feb 2017 10:50:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.2.126] (host213-123-124-182.in-addr.btopenworld.com. [213.123.124.182]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y80sm19985483wrb.12.2017.02.09.10.50.44 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 09 Feb 2017 10:50:45 -0800 (PST)
To: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>, "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@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>
From: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4f16e222-97e4-6f87-e1a3-79115db8f355@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2017 18:50:42 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <6F7EEE4C-2D31-438E-B672-49FEED30C1A4@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ioam/YoltxERw1LZ7lbtqTwiM-fuVlwQ>
Cc: "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, 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 18:50:50 -0000


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.

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.

- Stewart

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email