IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ippm] Welcome comment on Performance Measurement on LAG

"li_zhenqiang@hotmail.com" <li_zhenqiang@hotmail.com> Wed, 12 August 2020 08:13 UTC

Return-Path: <li_zhenqiang@hotmail.com>
X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BBDF3A1133 for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 01:13:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.089
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.089 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=hotmail.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 HjrCljXxN-0B for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 01:12:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from APC01-HK2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-oln040092255020.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.92.255.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 285973A1131 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 01:12:59 -0700 (PDT)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=oZwgUtrwUDPp+aB/k1qmUJ5kGiyKZcaeSEA0uKFAkJTt2TLPaSA9ZqSxi2TNP70QRLrRu+zbxucayDUFSDLBfHjnpn0nHS/EUXk5L7b6dF9y0aLKxcyQE9dImRrNfZKG/2amtDUQp65uxrl0j2gMU5DXpkGg3VONrrqcbCukFUcoO/UZJ2yIcHC5qufLaD1hyzd8dEspeHoQjJhdr387cRd45XnO9AUG7ODoejCkUZ+nKxxVJ34xUT19Ap7ZjDfrDDex7hSXB7/69AflyPf5KaAY8GORsP+H9Y3odvL255Fus7TQTMQ95LTnhaxaSxwkrhNjIZ2HFYrbXHDok2+thg==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=iWzaJybkxS7XwnP1Cb/lEwLZJ4Ox1zpVLJFBzrwAESc=; b=mHb2QKGGs97/t4Hdm58Z/hHfgincdwsgKn4SJXU4FMho58Q8E+8076FgvUEyTCOlBIkcqCDDnzrCC2VBp+BOaEL1grY0cpRDsZGzCkrGPo9DOa+O3VXJmjJAwtCSTt8mY5gJaOz4dxephrjHklbS3RyOdUNKr/pyNbCovzk5YOczkORhJFGYivblGCA1Lao0EBhzaaA9J2FOWJUa3jamV8duKVf2w0YQerDclXL0M5fFytsbcDMvV10bCSx64euTBQ+qFlFiSoj2yyhZJEbrKkCrBJRcYUtyBRa6JGU9kvkeisN0sVfA/bHJRgNNXVKWT0googKY0N15l591kCK0hg==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=none; dmarc=none; dkim=none; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hotmail.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=iWzaJybkxS7XwnP1Cb/lEwLZJ4Ox1zpVLJFBzrwAESc=; b=g1dQxnDUtXPxyL9qcDYLoruXKdi++yt1QzMSZZzySwCReeFwL3YXRG4nzmdl1D5ZM5uj9QaKmiDuMtx5HRf3p1GUkU/CEzucyIa23f0ssotjTRBsvAkMVQjGaL/8s7GquHmIOSCNK98CLcgdUkGv1eAXZXh9gK4yas25XD6vJTr1SPT6+wca2MNg8u/pzHBy644p2wiz9QgzEvVO9qFOFlLJK/9sMu/0P+7YPogG9p9pmkanrCYg6srt7b60nSSYrRJWZsW2ZrOp/Zjzj98luBTucs00IhJ4yasNStUIy4plUwwMI92jxh0AmRLo7fwZ4qQhHtAOceT8Gdyn8EWz6g==
Received: from PU1APC01FT026.eop-APC01.prod.protection.outlook.com (2a01:111:e400:7ebe::41) by PU1APC01HT215.eop-APC01.prod.protection.outlook.com (2a01:111:e400:7ebe::421) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3261.16; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 08:12:55 +0000
Received: from HK0PR03MB4066.apcprd03.prod.outlook.com (2a01:111:e400:7ebe::48) by PU1APC01FT026.mail.protection.outlook.com (2a01:111:e400:7ebe::235) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3261.16 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 08:12:54 +0000
X-IncomingTopHeaderMarker: OriginalChecksum:E8226D4B2DA0AE6BBE616FFFC34DD8642A17CA7BEBD37B057BBAB7DDC6DBE76C; UpperCasedChecksum:381F3C666697AC4EB3E7C9B7BDE90122F005094761C2D6F1E80FC7BE30E38181; SizeAsReceived:8868; Count:50
Received: from HK0PR03MB4066.apcprd03.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::7c95:91ff:e747:fd8]) by HK0PR03MB4066.apcprd03.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::7c95:91ff:e747:fd8%5]) with mapi id 15.20.3283.015; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 08:12:54 +0000
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 16:13:28 +0800
From: "li_zhenqiang@hotmail.com" <li_zhenqiang@hotmail.com>
To: Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>, "xiao.min2@zte.com.cn" <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn>
Cc: ippm <ippm@ietf.org>
References: HK0PR03MB40660A99FCC80DE06E1E8E71FC490@HK0PR03MB4066.apcprd03.prod.outlook.com, <202008111445297679843@zte.com.cn>, <F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE297D98934@dggeml530-mbs.china.huawei.com>
X-Has-Attach: no
X-Mailer: Foxmail 7.2.9.156[cn]
Message-ID: <HK0PR03MB4066402145A00F2F9706A23FFC420@HK0PR03MB4066.apcprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart787627256830_=----"
X-ClientProxiedBy: HK2PR02CA0165.apcprd02.prod.outlook.com (2603:1096:201:1f::25) To HK0PR03MB4066.apcprd03.prod.outlook.com (2603:1096:203:9d::21)
X-Microsoft-Original-Message-ID: <2020081216104188327520@hotmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-MessageSentRepresentingType: 1
Received: from cmcc-PC (183.243.243.38) by HK2PR02CA0165.apcprd02.prod.outlook.com (2603:1096:201:1f::25) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_1, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA) id 15.20.3283.15 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 08:12:53 +0000
X-Priority: 3
X-Has-Attach: no
X-Mailer: Foxmail 7.2.9.156[cn]
X-Microsoft-Original-Message-ID: <2020081216104188327520@hotmail.com>
X-TMN: [iu0l/NWh9tNJvNN82bHEjjnkgK5+8faR]
X-MS-PublicTrafficType: Email
X-IncomingHeaderCount: 50
X-EOPAttributedMessage: 0
X-MS-Office365-Filtering-Correlation-Id: 17219757-41e9-4431-369f-08d83e978366
X-MS-TrafficTypeDiagnostic: PU1APC01HT215:
X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;
X-Microsoft-Antispam-Message-Info: 4BNmyEuqsKk3KUQVdDk5fd4R72Lmv+JpDmTXp5fCgcfWoQtW/wpX8m7dDXYcyvK9X7/zAxWJCYsvkAkPeu3iZ9EEE45Ik3Au+i8IxjrPlEs7DxeUHst0sAleQZhAniLYTdmef0fmEw4PUzIOH3+6OX5jKPqVEFv73TKUb1F4mzD3p1Bo3Aza/f4Iizr34+1gPs8DrU5HPJarf0Ae1kcvYuD0HzULiPzV6YfxSioSAQ3P8S7VaCwidHrjyvUwaIQn
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:0; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:HK0PR03MB4066.apcprd03.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFTY:; SFS:; DIR:OUT; SFP:1901;
X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData: aLNYisClblY3pHo5oyLArVWTkvaxTrdhmmrj+e5pYwtIMbc62RRyUp0Rt5XPXz1eDha5CAUnRC8rAjtgCjOFsPfIeBxV1R+JmU/x7FUyfxrhdL7uOAr2GqxbyDCdTyoBecsJfmtprcb3CyMs0+Aq7g==
X-OriginatorOrg: hotmail.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 17219757-41e9-4431-369f-08d83e978366
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Aug 2020 08:12:54.7267 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 84df9e7f-e9f6-40af-b435-aaaaaaaaaaaa
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: PU1APC01FT026.eop-APC01.prod.protection.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Anonymous
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Internet
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-RMS-PersistedConsumerOrg: 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: PU1APC01HT215
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/Uwv4QCIDXOcBXqas0yIlAS8G6OE>
Subject: Re: [ippm] Welcome comment on Performance Measurement on LAG
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group <ippm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ippm/>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 08:13:01 -0000

Hello Min,

Thank you for your comment and suggestion!
The problem to be addressed is ugent for us since lots of delay sensitive services are springing out in our networks. We can not guarentee the time delay for the services without knowing the delay of each member link of a LAG.

As for seperating the doc into two, I am fine with it. We should define the extensions for STAMP, TWAMP and OWAMP because they are all used in the field networks.

Best Regards,
Zhenqiang Li  


li_zhenqiang@hotmail.com
 
From: Mach Chen
Date: 2020-08-11 15:17
To: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn; li_zhenqiang@hotmail.com
CC: ippm@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [ippm] Welcome comment on Performance Measurement on LAG
Hi Xiaomin,
 
Thanks for the suggestion!
 
As one of the co-authors, I am open to keep them in one document or separate it into two documents.
 
Best regards,
Mach
 
From: ippm [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2020 2:45 PM
To: li_zhenqiang@hotmail.com
Cc: ippm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [ippm] Welcome comment on Performance Measurement on LAG
 
Hi Zhenqiang,
 
Thanks for the nice draft addressing a real problem in field networks.
I propose to split this draft into two new drafts, one for OWAMP/TWAMP, another for STAMP. I think that will facilitate folks to read and evaluate them.
 
Best Regards,
Xiao Min
原始邮件
发件人：li_zhenqiang@hotmail.com <li_zhenqiang@hotmail.com>
收件人：ippm <ippm@ietf.org>;
日 期 ：2020年08月07日 14:43
主 题 ：[ippm] Welcome comment on Performance Measurement on LAG
_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
Hello All,
 
Performance Measurement on LAG, https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-li-ippm-pm-on-lag-01.txt, was not presented in the past virtual meeting due to limited time. This doc defines extensions to OWAMP, TWAMP and STAMP to implement performance measurement on every member link of a Link Aggregation Group (LAG).  With the measured metrics of each member link of a LAG, it enables operators to enforce performance metric based traffic steering policy among the member links.
 
The requirements come from field networks, where the link delays of the member links of a LAG are different because the member links are over different transport paths.  To provide low delay service to time sensitive traffic, we have to know the link delay of each member link of a LAG and then steer traffic accordingly.
 
We appreciate all the comments and suggestions.
 
Best Regards,
Zhenqiang Li


li_zhenqiang@hotmail.com

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email