IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ippm] New version about Performance Measurement on LAG

Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com> Tue, 27 October 2020 02:03 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 1E1F33A11D3 for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 19:03:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-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 SDwpohjY1kaK for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 19:03:53 -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 BB88C3A11CC for <ippm@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 19:03:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml750-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.106]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 6A568E879B96E4710281; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 02:03:52 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from lhreml750-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.200) by lhreml750-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.200) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 02:03:52 +0000
Received: from DGGEML421-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.1.199.38) by lhreml750-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.200) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA) id 15.1.1913.5 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 02:03:52 +0000
Received: from DGGEML510-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.184]) by dggeml421-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.1.199.38]) with mapi id 14.03.0487.000; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 10:03:49 +0800
From: Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>
To: Tal Mizrahi <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com>, "li_zhenqiang@hotmail.com" <li_zhenqiang@hotmail.com>
CC: ippm <ippm@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [ippm] New version about Performance Measurement on LAG
Thread-Index: AQHWp3zvYtWbRUk5tUiRsYwfTnJ7r6mquq/Q
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2020 02:03:49 +0000
Message-ID: <F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE297F35206@dggeml510-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <HK0PR03MB406647B95F1385E898C224B6FC7E0@HK0PR03MB4066.apcprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CABUE3XkcxMCKa_Axu_pd9FebP0c1XeL3xZYce_QkiXU0TCBWpA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABUE3XkcxMCKa_Axu_pd9FebP0c1XeL3xZYce_QkiXU0TCBWpA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.108.243.140]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/gq7yr-wChicKnqY7j2QQu7KwNIs>
Subject: Re: [ippm] New version about 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, 27 Oct 2020 02:03:55 -0000

Hi Tal,

Thanks for reviewing the draft and the value comments!

Some responses inline ...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ippm [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tal Mizrahi
> Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 3:35 PM
> To: li_zhenqiang@hotmail.com
> Cc: ippm <ippm@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [ippm] New version about Performance Measurement on LAG
> 
> Hi Authors,
> 
> Thanks for posting this new draft.
> I believe it is definitely worth discussing in the IPPM working group.

Thanks.

> 
> A couple of comments and questions:
> - It would be worth clarifying at the beginning that the scope of this draft is a
> measurement that is performed between two adjacent IEEE
> 802.1 bridges that are connected by a LAG. A small diagram may be very helpful.

OK, will do that.

> - More discussion is needed in the draft about how the <Member Link
> ID> field in the packets is correlated with the local link through
> which the packet was received. How does the session sender know the link ID of
> the session reflector? Is it pre-configured?

For now, it assumes that reflector member link id is pre-configured. There may be other ways that can be used to learn the ID dynamically, for example, using the first Test packet to learn it. 

Best regards,
Mach

> 
> Cheers,
> Tal.
> 
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 6:48 PM li_zhenqiang@hotmail.com
> <li_zhenqiang@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hello All,
> >
> > Please review and comment the doc which 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 links of a LAG, it enables operators to enforce performance metric
> based traffic steering policy among the member links.
> >
> > URL:
> > https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-li-ippm-pm-on-lag-01.txt
> > Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-ippm-pm-on-lag/
> > Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-li-ippm-pm-on-lag-01
> > Htmlized:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-li-ippm-pm-on-lag
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Zhenqiang Li
> > ________________________________
> > li_zhenqiang@hotmail.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > ippm mailing list
> > ippm@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> ippm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email