IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ippm] On progressing draft-mirsky-ippm-stamp-option-tlv

Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 20 June 2019 16:39 UTC

Return-Path: <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.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 65B9E1200F3; Thu, 20 Jun 2019 09:39:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 6JPYfBktHUCD; Thu, 20 Jun 2019 09:39:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x235.google.com (mail-lj1-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::235]) (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 421251200EA; Thu, 20 Jun 2019 09:39:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x235.google.com with SMTP id p17so3351837ljg.1; Thu, 20 Jun 2019 09:39:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=KDUVnPivc0CdTwxyOwR+54ZjfrG7iEdDrD+lvhq9b+Y=; b=XFse6iG+sDVKuSZqmaD0YhoMGQfim/T5jxq7FMgnCeoODeEHoyqquAaWnzWhsQs9B7 bLJ/LB2HorQFf6yU+OBbAXGAyi19y979Gf/Zc6ogZ6MK1hu7R7bAzTdZR4Bf4jccY+PP PMlz5jbwSj12Kx4+Cq3HDEha/v/Uou87/2XmRl0hOaCdJ4ERM5Qkhz6Lb47j5g9Yphyd LsQLJBOcegusL+XIyBI2/bU4p0dpZ7fPVDZlpUqEEzqlKs3L0N2EedbHH2WGRUUTECNJ WsJsTIwgR9sMNZRnX10/kJzerwMs7Rfr+ObQaDk+BnaJunq0lDvXwyMtz+4UiXYKQGGY oWCg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=KDUVnPivc0CdTwxyOwR+54ZjfrG7iEdDrD+lvhq9b+Y=; b=b/o/N69EqAckmQG/Q9j3UmUjBQ75iUBykwfImRJ/0+1VpUPpu0JkhqXtqRB3la5Q8y wtTGFOJz9jxHgCF66TU76Vb+V6wr+jOwooKgHRWbEb8VtNoakrxJeVJhiGRkGRPlEcWx L/ItasrbgXImHbpjPrLgnkLal7RrYijuXE6FKM1VQ1C2AYcIcbUUsHvmXMVAJ3ETuCgV gy8jsqzCpyLKPfSoD+Vmjlznr5DqLf7NWbhlT80YKso0Af3T+X2q5UXlTbLRypCKrBQJ W2TsQhRKX1TW3rbaTs0z5fjUSVsguLyvWj5MPFpLjMr5EJv6ZyCHg25MQxSJ8zZj1C7E +I4Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWGIJylBzqYua4ew3Kjs+p41JB08SAfbFgwNASD7MKA/FTV8h74 urzJ4+UPSRzJhR6DauvZt5UXCJBYbh1Wf2v3pg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzVMW7ZpyGgokJUcSCK7L/y/5JPgpFydMMciElEGgigd86Kx6iVdkJ9DllqyDJwqdvCeGP4prR+IMTFayDRfYw=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:95d5:: with SMTP id y21mr52720445ljh.84.1561048742412; Thu, 20 Jun 2019 09:39:02 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CA+RyBmXtiEQRhJxT5V=MrTZW_kH7nsS=M2t3QfW+WS3J8=8zag@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+RyBmXtiEQRhJxT5V=MrTZW_kH7nsS=M2t3QfW+WS3J8=8zag@mail.gmail.com>
From: Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2019 12:38:51 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMZsk6dH1MRYF5vepD0iLF0mQV+NG9BDb19QScz0OtGBr2vVbg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Cc: IPPM Chairs <ippm-chairs@ietf.org>, IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>, draft-mirsky-ippm-stamp-option-tlv@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c4c476058bc3fb76"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/3jKmVdN9yse_w0UtbcP6V7dGb1I>
Subject: Re: [ippm] On progressing draft-mirsky-ippm-stamp-option-tlv
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: Thu, 20 Jun 2019 16:39:06 -0000

Hi Greg, Authors,



It is good to see the TLV extensions for STAMP. As STAMP is defined for
carrying timestamps and sequence numbers, the TLVs should be for the
related extensions.



The direct measurement TLV proposed in the draft may not be hardware
friendly for actual data traffic loss measurement due to the need to search
the presence of the TLV and the counter offset not always fixed due to the
variable length payload. Also, it overloads the delay measurement probes
just for measuring packet loss which complicates the implementation.



For direct mode loss measurement, there is a simple new message
defined in *draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-srpm* which is hardware friendly
(just like LM using RFC 6374 using a separate message) and does not
overload the existing protocol used for delay measurement.



FYI, ITU Y.1731 also defines separate DMM and LMM messages for delay
and loss measurements.



Thanks,

Rakesh




On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 3:06 AM Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Chairs, et al.,
> authors of draft-mirsky-ippm-stamp-option-tlv believe that it is stable
> and detailed enough to ask for your consideration to start the WG Adoption
> Poll.
>
> Regards,
> Greg
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> ippm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email