Re: [ippm] Call for adoption of PM on LAG

Hi Yungyang Lu,
thank you for supporting our work and your thoughtful questions. The
scenario you've presented is realistic and we believe that our proposal can
address it. We'll describe handling of this interoperability scenario in
the future version of the draft.  Please find my notes in-lined below under
the GIM>> tag.

Regards,
Greg

On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 11:49 AM Lu Yunyang <luyy@unitechs.com> wrote:

> Hi WG,
>
>
>
> I support the adoption of these drafts. PM on LAG could solve some
> essential problem for provider and enterprise level network operation.
>
>
> Besides, I think it's necessary to add some clarification for
> interoperability betweet STAMP and TWAMP-Light, as those stated in RFC8762.
> Several issues should be considered:
>
> 1)  whether STAMP sender / TWAMP-Light reflector and TWAMP-Light sender /
> STAMP reflector combinations can be used for PM on LAG.
>
GIM>> I think that both scenarios can be supported, although that would
expect more from STAMP implementation as well as more configuration by an
operator to use STAMP-TWAMP Light interoperability principles described in
Section 4.6 of RFC 8762 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8762/>. As a
result, each of LAG member links will be configured as a separate test
session.

> 2)  any protocol modifaction or restriction for such measurements.
>
GIM>> It seems like this scenario would require more operational effort but
without specific protocol extensions. What do you think?

> 3)  other considerations that may involve, like security and compatibility
> with other TWAMP / STAMP extensions.
>
GIM>> Thank you for this suggestion! We'll certainly work on adding text
addressing security and interworking with other STAMP extensions.

>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Yunyang Lu
>
>
> *发件人:* ippm <ippm-bounces@ietf.org> *代表 *Marcus Ihlar
> *发送时间:* 2022年9月2日 00:44
> *收件人:* IETF IPPM WG (ippm@ietf.org) <ippm@ietf.org>
> *主题:* [ippm] Call for adoption of PM on LAG
>
>
>
> Hello IPPM,
>
> This email starts an adoption call in the IPPM working group for the
>  draft-li-ippm-stamp-on-lag and draft-li-ippm-otwamp-on-lag documents.
> These documents extend STAMP, OWAMP and TWAMP to support performance
> measurements on member links of a Link Aggregation Group.
>
>
>
> The first draft specifies an extension to STAMP and can be found here:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-ippm-stamp-on-lag/
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-li-ippm-stamp-on-lag/
>
>
>
> The second draft specifies extensions to OWAMP and TWAMP and can be found
> here:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-ippm-otwamp-on-lag/
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-li-ippm-otwamp-on-lag/
>
>
>
> Please reply to this email by *Thursday September 15*, to indicate
> whether you support adoption of these documents.
>
>
>
> BR
>
> Marcus & Tommy
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> ippm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
>