Re: [ippm] Welcome comment on Performance Measurement on LAG

xiao.min2@zte.com.cn Tue, 11 August 2020 06:45 UTC

Return-Path: <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn>
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 918F93A0CD5 for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 23:45:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.885
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.885 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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 X40RYLkOXyZF for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 23:45:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) (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 366CC3A0CE9 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 23:45:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mse-fl1.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.14.238]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id 58F98CC3FC3462EC2A9D; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 14:45:35 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njxapp02.zte.com.cn ([10.41.132.201]) by mse-fl1.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 07B6jTUB092343; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 14:45:30 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from xiao.min2@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njxapp03[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid201; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 14:45:29 +0800 (CST)
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 14:45:29 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afb5f323e89b7f6bf88
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <202008111445297679843@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <HK0PR03MB40660A99FCC80DE06E1E8E71FC490@HK0PR03MB4066.apcprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: HK0PR03MB40660A99FCC80DE06E1E8E71FC490@HK0PR03MB4066.apcprd03.prod.outlook.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
To: li_zhenqiang@hotmail.com
Cc: ippm@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl1.zte.com.cn 07B6jTUB092343
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/epPeTebPNAemo-q11OePOdEIk0k>
Subject: Re: [ippm] Welcome comment on Performance Measurement on LAG
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 Aug 2020 06:45:42 -0000

Hi Zhenqiang,







Thanks for the nice draft addressing a real problem in field networks.



I propose to split this draft into two new drafts, one for OWAMP/TWAMP, another for STAMP. I think that will facilitate folks to read and evaluate them.






Best Regards,


Xiao Min









原始邮件



发件人:li_zhenqiang@hotmail.com <li_zhenqiang@hotmail.com>
收件人:ippm <ippm@ietf.org>;
日 期 :2020年08月07日 14:43
主 题 :[ippm] Welcome comment on Performance Measurement on LAG




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

Hello All,


Performance Measurement on LAG, https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-li-ippm-pm-on-lag-01.txt, was not presented in the past virtual meeting due to limited time. This doc defines extensions to OWAMP, TWAMP and STAMP to implement performance measurement on every member link of a Link Aggregation Group (LAG).  With the measured metrics of each member link of a LAG, it enables operators to enforce performance metric based traffic steering policy among the member links.


The requirements come from field networks, where the link delays of the member links of a LAG are different because the member links are over different transport paths.  To provide low delay service to time sensitive traffic, we have to know the link delay of each member link of a LAG and then steer traffic accordingly.


We appreciate all the comments and suggestions.


Best Regards,
Zhenqiang Li

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

li_zhenqiang@hotmail.com