Re: [ippm] request the WG adoption for PM on LAG

["[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Chairs,

Thank you very much for your considerations.
As a coauthor from operator, I really think the drafts are useful. Although there are minor extensions, they can solve real problems in my field networks. 
We introduced them to the community and fortunately, more people agreed with us, and would like to promote.
I hope this could be a useful tool.



Best Regards,
Zhenqiang Li

[e-mail]
 
From: Marcus Ihlar
Date: 2022-08-10 00:30
To: Giuseppe Fioccola; [e-mail]; tpauly
CC: ippm
Subject: RE: [ippm] request the WG adoption for PM on LAG
Hi,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts and enthusiasm about these documents, though we’d like to remind you that this thread is not an official adoption call :).
 
We will make an official working group adoption call for these documents shortly.
 
Best regards,
Marcus & Tommy
 
From: Giuseppe Fioccola <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Thursday, 4 August 2022 12:03
To: [e-mail]; tpauly <[e-mail]>; Marcus Ihlar <[e-mail]>
Cc: ippm <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [ippm] request the WG adoption for PM on LAG
 
Hi All,
I have read the documents and I also agree with the proposal for moving these drafts forward.
The extensions proposed to STAMP, OWAMP and TWAMP allow to monitor all the links and not only the link crossed by the observed packet stream.
This work helps to fill this gap.
 
Regards,
 
Giuseppe
 
 
From: ippm <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of [e-mail]
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2022 5:16 AM
To: tpauly <[e-mail]>; marcus.ihlar <[e-mail]>
Cc: ippm <[e-mail]>
Subject: [ippm] request the WG adoption for PM on LAG
 
Dear IPPM Chairs,
 
We believe the attached two drafts about PM on LAG are mature and stable enough for WG adoption after meeting presentation and list discussion. The sample implementations of our vendors have been incorparated in their comercial release  and deployed in our field network. The results show that the proposed solution can test the accurate perfromace including delay, jitter and packet loss of each member link in the trunk. The accuracy of delay, jitter is usec which is enough for us and for the service requirement. 
 
So, could you please start the adoption call? Thank you very much. 
 
The links and abstracts of the two drafts are given below for your reference. 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-ippm-stamp-on-lag/ 
This document extends Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol   (STAMP) to implement performance measurement on every member link of   a Link Aggregation Group (LAG).  Knowing the measured metrics of each   member link of a LAG enables operators to enforce a performance based   traffic steering policy across the member links. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-ippm-otwamp-on-lag/ This document defines extensions to One-way Active Measurement   Protocol (OWAMP), and Two-way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) to   implement performance measurement on every member link of a Link   Aggregation Group (LAG).  Knowing the measured metrics of each member   link of a LAG enables operators to enforce the performance based   traffic steering policy across the member links.


Best Regards,
Zhenqiang Li
 
[e-mail]