From nobody Thu Jan 27 14:01:18 2022 Return-Path: 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 0618E3A137C; Thu, 27 Jan 2022 14:01:09 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.997 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.997 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, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 KN2cYNu-wPBG; Thu, 27 Jan 2022 14:01:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ej1-x630.google.com (mail-ej1-x630.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::630]) (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 23A233A1333; Thu, 27 Jan 2022 14:01:04 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ej1-x630.google.com with SMTP id h7so9286714ejf.1; Thu, 27 Jan 2022 14:01:04 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=PjGeXzWOXDCPZeECCJgCIz7jHS/O2+iW8ncNdvofxjs=; b=DAuIJYVB+qQw0RCIUNU5F+KAHU4HlE830ZQwWmW5Stmpd7L0yMgSnpeClXzmBVk2Eo 1jKL+RzFMGbiSIZYN8tAmyl2M5TkO4x//e80X674F7ZLfgAmaOmzgpLo5KJJzbImH1Ef Q1wMQ2E8PTzK/s95H0+VrXrxNax7KT5Qsh1/Wy+MnegnjjfTqmgxpkxlPfX3Cxs93Xvi A3Ya3snugw2NkK+8JmoDnGUGmYtCCW0ZUXYMtWiZ4VUU46K/VIzZstS1hyheJiguxbTB JN4VZQzY459pntsDsIEvMizGZTjpXTSKpM0GJEOQuwGTTdawzTy+m9Ath96RwxjLSQF9 5TNQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=PjGeXzWOXDCPZeECCJgCIz7jHS/O2+iW8ncNdvofxjs=; b=hbtYjRPtEIEjgJERdYKSkOsJD0BMj/30RbOvHpOumuTpIV2lzHkYy73R3cAURMHWuH Rl1w0FsShxvJgueNr7PxcJN+8uIoSAsfo4jy0s3EVXeG7iFBOpwFALJhjfeyKzufsIkO URrcTuvu6xDXLEfN0GQQ7+diy6nNdxmh52R6+0ol5svg5Adz57ARwPbXFPhmUe45OKX0 PRtKv29TtfnUvgvToAuUbXKrs/QiEGzz4mQnANAW5RcpH/SlV3TZSPRF/ITugcOr1ZJi Ed4sCt8P6dm4TSyxgVLydF1meBvtzfkUsPWkq1Ynm7Y8C36LD2h0HbI335f+XVUKTzkx N5og== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532pcEpPLvU90hfCoIjfOlV7wXM02T9bThObZ5vTlLAyJWwp74qG fHI57KJRaS1N43dycStNBEnuYyj+U6OZL9sYppwpy4gxU1RLuA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyYeok+xbKDvc32tyzQomsvyWIruM2NS2rQd+YtXu4O8eFa+1xqYIA/qMZuO0O3f4FE9leYWWNb/0YrqIR1wEI= X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:a428:: with SMTP id sg40mr4537753ejc.235.1643320861242; Thu, 27 Jan 2022 14:01:01 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Greg Mirsky Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2022 14:00:49 -0800 Message-ID: To: Haoyu Song Cc: "spring@ietf.org" , IETF IPPM WG Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002fbb8a05d697748a" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [ippm] [spring] Active OAM in SRv6 X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2022 22:01:15 -0000 --0000000000002fbb8a05d697748a Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Haoyu, thank you for your detailed reply. Please find my follow-up notes in-lined below under the GIM2>> tag. Regards, Greg On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 11:00 AM Haoyu Song wrote: > Hi Greg, > > > > Thank you for your questions. Please see inline response. > > > > Best, > > Haoyu > > > > *From:* Greg Mirsky > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 26, 2022 3:01 PM > *To:* Haoyu Song > *Cc:* spring@ietf.org; IETF IPPM WG > *Subject:* Re: [spring] Active OAM in SRv6 > > > > Hi Haoyu, > > thank you for bringing the topic of Active OAM to the discussion. As the > concept of Active IOAM is introduced in the IPPM WG draft > it > seems to me like adding the IPPM WG community to the discussion is the > right thing to do. > > Please find my notes in-lined below under the GIM>> tag. > > > > Regards, > > Greg > > > > On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 2:37 PM Haoyu Song > wrote: > > Hi SPRING WG, > > > > Real time monitor on every node and every link on a network is necessary > to detect gray failures, which are the key culprit for poor QoS but hard > to catch. SR provides an ideal mechanism, when working with some efficien= t > planning algorithm, to achieve that with low cost. Our proposal SRv6 > In-situ Active Measurement (SIAM) suggests a simple active measurement > approach which can support different > > GIM>> I wonder what gaps you find in the existing active measurement > protocols, e.g., STAMP and RFC 6734 (would be more convenient to use an > acronym). It appears to me that, for example, STAMP and its extensions, > including the SRPM draft > , > comprehensively address the PM OAM requirements for SRv6. > > > > HS>> Let=E2=80=99s give a few features of our proposal: (1) it=E2=80=99s = session-less and > we don=E2=80=99t need assign any roles (e.g., reflector); (2) no needs f= or a > return path. The measurement can start and end at any node (solely > determined by the SRH); (3) udp-based which can support any existing IOAM > modes and potentially other OAM methods. > GIM2>> I don't think adding a protocol that can generate a test probe from an arbitrary node to arbitrary targets (SRv6 supports multicast) is as simple as you present. If an operator needs to monitor the performance of the SR policy used by data packets, IOAM can be applied to data packets. If the operator wants to explore a policy that is not used for data traffic, I imagine IOAM can be added to a test packet of the existing OAM protocol, e.g., ICMP. Am I missing some of the requirements? > options of IOAM and other OAM methods in SRv6, without needing to worry > about the extension header issue. > > GIM>> draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data classifies IOAM as follows: > > In terms of the classification given > > in [RFC7799] IOAM could be portrayed as Hybrid Type 1. > > Does your proposal change that? > > > > HS>> In this particular case, IOAM is used for active measurement because > it=E2=80=99s not included in a user packet. > > > > Your comments, questions, and suggestions are very welcome. I=E2=80=99d l= ike to > know your opinion if you think this work is in scope and should be adopte= d > by the working group. If you are interested in contributing to this work= , > please also let me know. > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-song-spring-siam/ > > > > > Thank you very much! > > > > Best regards, > > Haoyu > > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > spring@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring > > > --0000000000002fbb8a05d697748a Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Haoyu,
thank you = for your detailed reply. Please find my follow-up notes in-lined below unde= r the GIM2>> tag.

Regards,
Greg

On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 11:00 AM Haoyu Song <haoyu.song@futurewei.com> wrote:

Hi Greg,

=C2=A0

Thank you for your questions. Please see inline resp= onse.

=C2=A0

Best,

Haoyu

=C2=A0

From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2022 3:01 PM
To: Haoyu Song <haoyu.song@futurewei.com>
Cc: spring@ietf= .org; IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [spring] Active OAM in SRv6

=C2=A0

Hi Haoyu,

thank you for bringing the topic of Active OAM to th= e discussion. As the concept of Active IOAM is introduced in the IPPM WG draft=C2=A0it seems to me like adding the IPPM WG community to = the discussion is the right thing to do.=C2=A0

Please find my notes in-lined below under the GIM>= ;> tag.

=C2=A0

Regards,

Greg

=C2=A0

On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 2:37 PM Haoyu Song <haoyu.song@futurew= ei.com> wrote:

Hi SPRING WG,

=C2=A0

Real time monitor on every node and every link on a = network is necessary to detect =C2=A0gray failures, which are the key culpr= it for poor QoS but hard to catch. SR provides an ideal mechanism, when working with some efficient planning algorithm, to achieve= that with low cost. =C2=A0=C2=A0Our proposal SRv6 In-situ Active Measureme= nt (SIAM) suggests a simple =C2=A0active measurement approach which can sup= port different

GIM>> I wonder what gaps you find in the exist= ing active measurement protocols, e.g., STAMP and RFC 6734 (would be more c= onvenient to use an acronym). It appears to me that, for example, STAMP and= its extensions, including the SRPM draft, comprehensively address the PM OAM requirements for SRv6.= =C2=A0

=C2=A0

HS>> Let=E2=80=99s give a few features of our = proposal: (1) it=E2=80=99s session-less and we don=E2=80=99t need assign an= y roles (e.g., =C2=A0reflector); (2) no needs for a return path. The measur= ement can start and end at any node (solely determined by the SRH); (3) udp-based which can support any existing IOAM modes and potentially other = OAM methods.

GIM2&= gt;> I don't think adding a protocol that can generate a test probe = from an arbitrary node to arbitrary targets (SRv6 supports multicast) is as= simple as you present. If an operator needs to monitor the performance of = the SR policy used by data packets, IOAM can be applied to data packets. If= the operator wants to explore a policy that is not used for data traffic, = I imagine IOAM can be added to a test packet of the existing OAM protocol, = e.g., ICMP. Am I missing some of the requirements?

options of IOAM and other OAM methods in SRv6, witho= ut needing to worry about the extension header issue. =C2=A0<= /p>

GIM>> draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data classifies IOA= M as follows:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0In terms of the classification given=

=C2=A0 =C2=A0in [RFC7799] IOAM could be portrayed as= Hybrid Type 1.

Does your proposal change=C2=A0that?

=C2=A0

HS>> In this particular case, IOAM is used for= active measurement because it=E2=80=99s not included in a user packet.

=C2=A0

Your comments, questions, and suggestions are very w= elcome. I=E2=80=99d like to know your opinion if you think this work is in = scope and should be adopted by the working group.=C2=A0 If you are interested in contributing to this work, please also let me know. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-song-spring-siam/<= /p>

=C2=A0

Thank you very much!

=C2=A0

Best regards,

Haoyu

_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring

--0000000000002fbb8a05d697748a--