Re: [ippm] Availability metrics in the IETF Network Slice

Gyan Mishra <> Fri, 20 May 2022 05:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E486C26D457; Thu, 19 May 2022 22:04:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.087
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.087 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_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_REMOTE_IMAGE=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bfxX2AN3rENw; Thu, 19 May 2022 22:04:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1030]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67107C26D453; Thu, 19 May 2022 22:04:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id pq9-20020a17090b3d8900b001df622bf81dso6962217pjb.3; Thu, 19 May 2022 22:04:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=UKzZgkejJssomJRMLxHtvne2qe05A5SA+lrcRF3WILI=; b=fX6J/yQxe+r8SVdE54+I7qvJCTNipBtaB6c902HB1h/vohdbfA+CwjYAiafWIMLPGR mmvKcorFmug89p40KFgIVxg2UN3TnduaStiGQcBcp2XOJ9RmPqFlWAbJif2osUNhWkmF XhqP3iXx1MPZqHPELWWQWcWzTwXgUUz1s+M1BQ0QI/tVFbrXQ0OJJedYFhEu0hza0JHH Fg1Ltz+YQu2fx/+gAvAXNwGmracwhlpzHjstbyUJnZR0MxC/WYCFwYkB5wWo3EOOWA4J Opj2KMrN+VJwKixfDe2Ex/2ied5V+bE6UIAniZMV16Vcyx7vZJ4qXn0edYzrzi+xM5O2 AH5A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=UKzZgkejJssomJRMLxHtvne2qe05A5SA+lrcRF3WILI=; b=YEMqoKcH68XW8lhzMthR4RgYbNj64up0A+OAPITWxiNGNdk+q1rp66lidvzA/4jli6 wYLTUzYkSvofXM/sp0YgPtq1393FpCSg3beol9SV2aOkccVsOJmaEW8Ud3i54/cf/MIE ReLEDRamoFV/s6r/Xa8E4nxdrXQEB6yrRNHCYzrze5pdVkCxzsjYziDQCgOzUFNlpOmS fy9WADFXHjgaTFkuyuGElJ99wSD+oL0ECd36A2ZukFdHsSFWcmfBE+m698GJpTOsI49w GDrxu3VZfKiSMsOdbbB2+DI8xOADvr9YTqsA9d5wZkJnD4hmvddjcsfho8XhYiY3kFJv f8oA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533JmImowMUmZDNZVlH4oRRYLci14jlVn0pomJ1q1Nlxcy4QWAdY 7Pd68xy2k11ZhL3GRa1cmT1/FobqCrr0qZkYs5c=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxRFxNFamqfjcpjiKyZuY2cftg3n4CjONdwiP66sAKWX3yimPsrgdBO/CUpPoiFAIm8DxWSPQO4Psjf27uRDNU=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:410d:b0:1df:716c:12db with SMTP id u13-20020a17090a410d00b001df716c12dbmr9434382pjf.93.1653023083422; Thu, 19 May 2022 22:04:43 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Gyan Mishra <>
Date: Fri, 20 May 2022 01:04:32 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: Greg Mirsky <>
Cc: Adrian Farrel <>, IETF IPPM WG <>, TEAS WG <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b1680d05df6a6d3e"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [ippm] Availability metrics in the IETF Network Slice
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 May 2022 05:04:48 -0000

Hi Greg

I read the IPPM-PAM draft and slide deck presentation at IETF 113 and
support the drafts goals of PAM metrics to monitor network slice service
being delivered compliance relative to pre defined SLOs.

Availability is a difficult metric to measure and I think the PAM draft
provides an excellent way to quantify the metrics and measure
availability.  I agree that having a normative reference to your draft
would help provide directly concrete information on how to measure

 I think the PAM draft is a great idea and IPPM WG development of such
drafts related to IETF network slicing will really be key to success of
network slicing.

Kind Regards


On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 10:04 AM Greg Mirsky <> wrote:

> Hi Adrian, et al,
> I've got a question about the relationship of performance metrics like
> packet loss ratio, packet delay, packet delay variation of an IETF Network
> Slice service (NSS), on one hand, and IETF NSS availability. I think that
> Section considers all these metrics as Directly Measurable SLOs. I
> agree with such characterization in regard to loss and delay while I am not
> sure that that applies to the availability. The issue I have is that, as
> far as I know, there's no formal definition of the availability metric in
> the document and it seems that we've been using it in a colloquial way. A
> group of us started to work on a definition of the availability as a
> performance metric for a multi-SLO service
> <>. We had
> discussed this work at the IPPM WG meeting at IETF-113. I think that this
> work is relevant to the discussion of the IETF NSS availability. If that is
> the case, perhaps the characterization of the availability in Section
> can be further enhanced with the reference to
> the draft-mhmcsfh-ippm-pam.
> I greatly appreciate your comments, questions, and suggestions on our work
> on Precision Availability Metrics.
> Regards,
> Greg
> PS. Attached, please find the presentation slides from the IPPM WG meeting.
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list


*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *

*Email <>*

*M 301 502-1347*