Re: [ippm] New Draft draft-gandhi-spring-udp-pm
Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com> Tue, 11 September 2018 01:25 UTC
Return-Path: <mach.chen@huawei.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 02F3113101C; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 18:25:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 pa9DeQ4zNOFE; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 18:25:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 640E9131008; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 18:25:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml706-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id E2BD8CACA80E7; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 02:09:33 +0100 (IST)
Received: from DGGEML422-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.1.199.39) by lhreml706-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.47) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.399.0; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 02:09:33 +0100
Received: from DGGEML510-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.7]) by dggeml422-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.1.199.39]) with mapi id 14.03.0399.000; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 09:09:28 +0800
From: Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>
To: "Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)" <rgandhi@cisco.com>
CC: "ippm@ietf.org" <ippm@ietf.org>, spring <spring@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: New Draft draft-gandhi-spring-udp-pm
Thread-Index: AQHUHdYWIyzVjAdRVki/QCU1ZO1Y+aSdv1EAgEwbkYCAAMFW0A==
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2018 01:09:28 +0000
Message-ID: <F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE29263AB7C@dggeml510-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <92ED16BE-ACDF-4901-91B5-BC39A744C2F1@cisco.com> <F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE29254C085@dggeml510-mbx.china.huawei.com> <BB5CFE61-A182-4846-B748-FDBE7F10A3E7@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <BB5CFE61-A182-4846-B748-FDBE7F10A3E7@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.194.201]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE29263AB7Cdggeml510mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/VMu-wE3dfu08jPi0DIfds1mXvC0>
Subject: Re: [ippm] New Draft draft-gandhi-spring-udp-pm
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: Tue, 11 Sep 2018 01:25:50 -0000
Hi Rakesh, It looks good to me. Best regards, Mach From: Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) [mailto:rgandhi@cisco.com] Sent: Monday, September 10, 2018 8:37 PM To: Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com> Cc: ippm@ietf.org; spring <spring@ietf.org> Subject: Re: New Draft draft-gandhi-spring-udp-pm Thanks Mach for the comments. We will add following TLV in the next revision of the draft. 3.1.2.1. Block Number TLV The Loss Measurement using Alternate-Marking method defined in [RFC8321] requires to identify the Block Number (colour) of the traffic counters carried by the probe query and response messages. Probe query and response messages specified in [RFC6374] for Loss Measurement do not define any means to carry the Block Number. [RFC6374] defines probe query and response messages that can include one or more optional TLVs. New TLV Type (value TBA8) is defined in this document to carry Block Number (32-bit) for the traffic counters in the probe query and response messages for loss measurement. The format of the Block Number TLV is shown in Figure 11: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type TBA7 | Length | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Block Number | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 11: Block Number TLV The Block Number TLV is optional. The PM querier node SHOULD only insert one Block Number TLV in the probe query message and the responder node in the probe response message SHOULD return the first Block Number TLV from the probe query messages and ignore other Block Number TLVs if present. In probe query and response messages, the counters MUST belong to the same Block Number. Thanks, Rakesh From: Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com<mailto:mach.chen@huawei.com>> Date: Monday, July 23, 2018 at 11:31 PM To: "=SMTP:rgandhi@cisco. com" <rgandhi@cisco.com<mailto:rgandhi@cisco.com>> Cc: "ippm@ietf.org<mailto:ippm@ietf.org>" <ippm@ietf.org<mailto:ippm@ietf.org>>, spring <spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>> Subject: RE: New Draft draft-gandhi-spring-udp-pm Hi Authors, The draft-gandhi-spring-udp-pm-01 defines a new C flag as following: 3.1.2.1. Loss Measurement Flags An LM message carries Data Format Flags (DFlags) as defined in [RFC6374]. New Flag is defined in this document for Color (C) in the DFlags field as follows. +-+-+-+-+ |X|B|C|0| +-+-+-+-+ Data Format Flags The Flag C indicates the Color of the counters in the LM probe message [RFC6374] when using Alternate-Marking method defined in [RFC8321]. ------------- As defined in Section 4.2 of [RFC8321], could you consider to define more than one flag or a TLV to carry Block number instead? Best regards, Mach From: ippm [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 9:57 PM To: ippm@ietf.org<mailto:ippm@ietf.org> Subject: [ippm] New Draft draft-gandhi-spring-udp-pm Hi WG, We like to introduce following new draft that was presented to SPRING WG yesterday. This draft defines IP/UDP path for sending probe query messages for delay and loss measurement that is agnostics to data plane (SR-MPLS/SRv6/IP) and does not require to bootstrap PM session. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gandhi-spring-udp-pm/ You may find presentation in the following package (it is the second draft). https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/102/materials/slides-102-spring-13-performance-measurement-in-sr-networks-00 We welcome your comments and suggestions. Thanks, Rakesh (On behalf of authors and contributors)
- [ippm] New Draft draft-gandhi-spring-udp-pm Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)
- Re: [ippm] New Draft draft-gandhi-spring-udp-pm Greg Mirsky
- Re: [ippm] New Draft draft-gandhi-spring-udp-pm Mach Chen
- Re: [ippm] New Draft draft-gandhi-spring-udp-pm Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)
- Re: [ippm] [spring] New Draft draft-gandhi-spring… Rakesh Gandhi
- Re: [ippm] New Draft draft-gandhi-spring-udp-pm Mach Chen