Re: [ippm] [spring] Active OAM in SRv6

Hi Haoyu,

The application is really interesting and useful.
I am not sure if it is necessary to create a new OAM protocol at transport layer.
IMHO, a per hop/per segment extension based on STAMP could be more practical.
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-wang-ippm-stamp-hbh-extensions-03.txt

Best,
Tianran

From: ippm [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Greg Mirsky
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2022 7:01 AM
To: Haoyu Song <haoyu.song@futurewei.com>
Cc: spring@ietf.org; IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [ippm] [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<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-flags> 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 <haoyu.song@futurewei.com<mailto:haoyu.song@futurewei.com>> 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 efficient 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<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-srpm>, comprehensively address the PM OAM requirements for SRv6.
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?

Your comments, questions, and suggestions are very welcome. I’d like to know your opinion if you think this work is in scope and should be adopted 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<mailto:spring@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring