Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp

Henrik Nydell <hnydell@accedian.com> Fri, 09 August 2019 11:52 UTC

Return-Path: <hnydell@accedian.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 EEC56120172 for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Aug 2019 04:52:38 -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, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=accedian-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 6BDRnwpRMeu1 for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Aug 2019 04:52:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vs1-xe36.google.com (mail-vs1-xe36.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e36]) (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 C776612014A for <ippm@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Aug 2019 04:52:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vs1-xe36.google.com with SMTP id 2so65180941vso.8 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Fri, 09 Aug 2019 04:52:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=accedian-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=BBcq6UC6b9Jwur1qgZ7DrvKvEiNAQeACRgINoJR+yoA=; b=0aCV35HdeYyYTk/I38lB87Z7LV3wEJSM70xns7HEFg6yh4AWJAD/ZWzaMAOLbOFN+b Tl5wfVg1/piiN4iqv9PViqurGsrgatf7PfyO/nFpJO1T4VBjpfEcbkrwXu2WGx0d4eOB EKTkYE7QQG1WzpQKbQ8ckjf5vz0fZm8IG2dzcBZzTO8ZbWaDt2FXU5ZlDKK36wCFScMf No8LWnj1LXDhxi5F7a37jLQGjLJhO296GEaFTTqisr0hp0VKedM+hxInJvmVS52uC0jD wn5/FK5uvh5wvH6zjuSaqOvReVpvZlaBBe32AGZwoKzV8Ie35rJD1QE4iGLYJFRIk8hy 1R7w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=BBcq6UC6b9Jwur1qgZ7DrvKvEiNAQeACRgINoJR+yoA=; b=Y4uJjHiWPbyHxouUkLTe/EGEZ11fdO+jl2nVU9fMm/kMSQNpEPsoUIp3ER9eHmDKt3 /3B9fuBbp7yCOTgpZYygpjOV8bqo/qGCUv3Gpk0RvgfSTIHqQ3VD5VuI5GgPFQK3Ba6j jYGnFXpCflvHcDxuc1YX/RPDtGiF7YdEZBiZvihhWKdN3cTcWHTVwAFqEdRoCt7AqBRY mtNceJjsdsbYsHLGbkuSDWw4S9zvdhCbQy0gub2RJDQDL5t/cuf9wsEllOXS61NyInhb jJktN9Wvh4hwE7fEPwB9GwH70v3rbmq73CHip4elnhuegRGgoLQamkkMxhuQfAM/YITE 9Brg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXeatFD8HZAqTtLwk1czZzAubsFgF23HTs+EMvkB/ZFaa9z4dtP QWNi6OdakrDJqUBnVC4mb9W1sKLppkBquTArg2KheEeiUaSy8f/4zW6M56rVSwcoO8C9ut7O87n yKvRt3QPZyZrw
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqw8UGvexWuXInn5KpGrfzwy0PSpInMTSWXozdeUOCv4ce9KxmK/li3/ZagUE8qQcds94BhE4NyFkZtpFH7Oe6w=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:e90c:: with SMTP id c12mr12795551vso.97.1565351550333; Fri, 09 Aug 2019 04:52:30 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <B617B303-6EBE-4E3B-AE5C-1438FF1C5D7F@kuehlewind.net> <CA+RyBmVEmKQu=LGp9eVT+x5e01LCSk_A4tQD=RE8Ett-R35BVg@mail.gmail.com> <11938018-8A65-483B-8176-A6E1C2A265A3@kuehlewind.net> <CA+RyBmX=Jx2yXrMXu4Y2VKX36iKphymb1Hkyfy0XhPGFmsUGzQ@mail.gmail.com> <B8047CA0-2F5E-48F8-9BE4-3FA41D742F12@kuehlewind.net> <CA+RyBmXPCe7TZQqPgsKsVnifZDG8O8wGafDn-nzYfGpx2OiaXQ@mail.gmail.com> <F167C330-76F4-48FC-B720-415CA190239C@broadcom.com> <CA+RyBmVtfXcwqu1RH-1JXnhpCZcbGgm30ubKGctUPnLNJCgVZQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAMZsk6f=x1j_fXAoqZ874y0nw7Y1wP0OeS9eFuToSBQfrqkJLQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA+RyBmVWZ3utikyBRm4TDhRDuMd3cZ9-otbuX=Mbg0ioAGjwHg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMZsk6eJf2xjsRJwnBtd5KFHbwO4KX3gEjs_Nv1Dhf39ZWjegA@mail.gmail.com> <CA+RyBmXHTjpbWv4FGpOsfL94Zip3MsVvESyka5M8PrmNKFB=YQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAMZsk6dGneYXFr3Xk_DuQnbwa=-ObV_SNdGOSj1Z203wW-PzTg@mail.gmail.com> <CALhTbppn9jpCLaSLR3QSN=yA0uDyXXMCQ+Rm4qFrR5OrjS31Dw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMZsk6eidFR-doLCvMim6HJZ142q_Q0V7XmiLP6Ki5_jmNvUxw@mail.gmail.com> <CALhTbppD+GSRf2U_eSPfm4RkTC1-vm-+rfuVJUesHmFiPxmnGw@mail.gmail.com> <4D7F4AD313D3FC43A053B309F97543CFA0ADA7AE@njmtexg4.research.att.com> <CAMZsk6fODTiLctxJArHyVz9AvyKfrUwefPw0GPg+T3uhRFv6dg@mail.gmail.com> <CALhTbpqzriiZ8RqtFWR0+tjYUwj6A4AV=0d=w6_cMBHFHrF6Fw@mail.gmail.com> <4D7F4AD313D3FC43A053B309F97543CFA0ADAA75@njmtexg4.research.att.com> <9AEB8751-44B2-41C0-84D8-39B69F7D55BF@cisco.com> <CA+RyBmXteNOH6nfoeF5cH8v2U7mOQPFxX6wHMqKSSPugCKZGrQ@mail.gmail.com> <CALhTbprAKvHTO4Osy_HcX05XXeJi+Muz1s=eqwVRoTJWPuU4xQ@mail.gmail.com> <F9DC42CF-0145-45CC-ADCB-BAFBC1B6C99C@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <F9DC42CF-0145-45CC-ADCB-BAFBC1B6C99C@cisco.com>
From: Henrik Nydell <hnydell@accedian.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2019 13:52:20 +0200
Message-ID: <CALhTbppba+Ar6ZwaNpQYZy4jbg6Ftogq9PUXGAOBQFZkMYf6cw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)" <rgandhi@cisco.com>
Cc: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>, "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acm@research.att.com>, Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>, "draft-ietf-ippm-stamp@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ippm-stamp@ietf.org>, IPPM Chairs <ippm-chairs@ietf.org>, Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>, IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001b44eb058fadcf29"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/ipcJg1YKRANerJtc7aip5DcXKNQ>
Subject: Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp
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: Fri, 09 Aug 2019 11:52:39 -0000

Sounds good to me.

On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 1:51 PM Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) <rgandhi@cisco.com>
wrote:

> Thanks Henrik and Greg for the text proposals.
>
>
>
> May be we can change the text as follows to allow the flexibility.
>
>
>
> "Thus STAMP Session-Sender SHOULD be able to send test packets to
> destination UDP port number from the Dynamic and/or Private Ports range
> 49152-65535 as well as the registered TWAMP port 862. Implementations MAY
> allow using UDP port number outside the Private Ports range when the test
> management system finds a port number that both devices can use."
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rakesh
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Henrik Nydell <hnydell@accedian.com>
> *Date: *Friday, August 9, 2019 at 5:51 AM
> *To: *Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
> *Cc: *"=SMTP:rgandhi@cisco. com" <rgandhi@cisco.com>om>, "MORTON, ALFRED C
> (AL)" <acm@research.att.com>om>, Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>om>, "
> draft-ietf-ippm-stamp@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ippm-stamp@ietf.org>rg>, IPPM
> Chairs <ippm-chairs@ietf.org>rg>, Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>et>,
> IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Greg, to make the wording even clearer you could change to
>
>
>
> "Thus STAMP Session-Sender MUST as a minimum be able to send test
>    packets to destination UDP port number from the Dynamic and/or
>    Private Ports range 49152-65535 as well as the registered TWAMP port
> 862. Implementations MAY allow using ports outside the IANA assigned
> Private Ports range."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 5:56 PM Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Rakesh and Henrik,
>
> thank you for a very informative discussion. Do you think the wording in
> Section 4.4 of the STAMP specification needs modification:
>
>    Thus STAMP Session-Sender MUST be able to send test
>    packets to destination UDP port number from the Dynamic and/or
>    Private Ports range 49152-65535, test management system should find a
>    port number that both devices can use.
>
> ...
>
>    In the latter scenario, the test management system SHOULD set STAMP
>    Session-Reflector to use UDP port number from the Dynamic and/or
>    Private Ports range.
>
> I think that the text is not restrictive and can stay. What do you think?
>
> We can review and update STAMP YANG model in a separate thread.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Greg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 6:09 AM Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) <rgandhi@cisco.com>
> wrote:
>
> Thanks Henrik and Al for your feedbacks and discussions.
>
>
>
> I have few comments on the TWAMP yang model draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang:
>
>
>
> 1)      Reflector side does not have autoallocate option. Only sender
> side has it and both allow dynamic range ports only (and 862).
>
>       leaf reflector-udp-port {
>
>                type inet:port-number {
>
>                  range "862 | 49152..65535";
>
>                }
>
>
>
>      leaf sender-udp-port {
>
>                type union {
>
>                  type dynamic-port-number;
>
>                  type enumeration {
>
>                    enum autoallocate {
>
>                      description
>
>                        "Indicates that the Contol-Client will
>
>                         auto-allocate the TWAMP-Test (UDP) port number
>
>                         from the dynamic port range.";
>
>                    }
>
>
>
> 2)      Autoallocate is still from the dynamic port range only.
>
> 3)      Even with the dynamic UDP port, the backend and controller still
> need to  handle the case where the UDP port has been allocated to something
> else on that node, as it is dynamic.
>
> 4)      Well known ports can be handled by the backend similarly if there
> was an error in provisioning.
>
> 5)      This range issue seems to get propagated to the new work like
> draft-ietf-ippm-stamp.
>
>
>
> Other than the VOIP example below, there is another example of the similar
> case on Page 31 in https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-tram-turnbis-29.txt
> as pointed out by Mirja in another thread.
>
>
>
> At this point, two vendors are saying the UDP port range for TWAMP is an
> issue for them. As the existing implementations do not have such range
> limit, operators may be using an UDP port outside this range, this means
> moving to the TWAMP Yang model could be troublesome.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rakesh
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *ippm <ippm-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)"
> <acm@research.att.com>
> *Date: *Thursday, August 8, 2019 at 5:02 AM
> *To: *Henrik Nydell <hnydell@accedian.com>om>, Rakesh Gandhi <
> rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>
> *Cc: *"draft-ietf-ippm-stamp@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ippm-stamp@ietf.org>rg>,
> IPPM Chairs <ippm-chairs@ietf.org>rg>, Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>et>,
> IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp
>
>
>
> Hi Rakesh and Henrik,
>
>
>
> working from the VoIP testing example below, it seems as though
>
> “ability to test on a specific port in the User range,
>
> with prior agreement of users on the tested network”
>
> should have been asked for-as a feature during
>
> YANG model development?
>
>
>
> the authors used the Dynamic Range to avoid *accidentally*
>
> stepping on IANA-allocated User ports during auto-allocation:
>
>
>
>              leaf sender-udp-port {
>
>                type union {
>
>                  type dynamic-port-number;
>
>                  type enumeration {
>
>                    enum autoallocate {
>
>                      description
>
>                        "Indicates that the Contol-Client will
>
>                         auto-allocate the TWAMP-Test (UDP) port number
>
>                         from the dynamic port range.";
>
>                    }
>
> with RFC 6335:
>
> 6.  Port Number Ranges
>
>
>
>    TCP, UDP, UDP-Lite, SCTP, and DCCP use 16-bit namespaces for their
>
>    port number registries.  The port registries for all of these
>
>    transport protocols are subdivided into three ranges of numbers
>
>    [RFC1340], and Section 8.1.2 describes the IANA procedures for each
>
>    range in detail:
>
>
>
>    o  the System Ports, also known as the Well Known Ports, from 0-1023
>
>       (assigned by IANA)
>
>
>
>    o  the User Ports, also known as the Registered Ports, from 1024-
>
>       49151 (assigned by IANA)
>
>
>
> providing our over-riding guidance.
>
>
>
> If we agree that the sort of testing you describe means
>
> adding a new feature to the model, then let’s give some thought
>
> to how that might best be done.
>
>
>
> Al
>
>
>
> *From:* Henrik Nydell [mailto:hnydell@accedian.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 8, 2019 3:51 AM
> *To:* Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <acm@research.att.com>om>; IPPM Chairs <
> ippm-chairs@ietf.org>gt;; IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>rg>; Mirja Kuehlewind <
> ietf@kuehlewind.net>gt;; draft-ietf-ippm-stamp@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp
>
>
>
> Agree Rakesh.
>
> There is value in being able to for example as close as possibly mimic for
> example a VoIP flow on a network path, using typical UDP ports (5060 for
> example), and a typical VoIP IPG (20ms) and proper payload length to make
> the TWAMP flows be treated in the same way as the real RTP traffic by the
> network elements (firewalls, NAT or other port-sensitive devices).
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 6:02 PM Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Thanks Al and Henrik.
>
> If there is no specific requirement to add a limit on the UDP port range,
> it would be good to not have it in the STAMP draft as well as in the TWAMP
> Yang model. Let implementations decide what ports they can support (keeping
> in mind the assigned ones) and let operators decide what port they like to
> provision.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rakesh
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 10:34 AM MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <
> acm@research.att.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> *From:* ippm [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Henrik Nydell
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 7, 2019 4:30 AM
> *To:* Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* IPPM Chairs <ippm-chairs@ietf.org>rg>; IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>rg>;
> Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>et>; draft-ietf-ippm-stamp@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp
>
>
>
> The range probably comes from the IANA definition of the ephemeral ports
> (49152 to 65535) although these are defined for short-lived TCP and not
> explicitly for UDP. Why this made it into the yang model for TWAMP-test
> (which is UDP) I dont know, probably someone mixed it up with TCP and it
> passed the reviewers without much thought.
>
> *[acm] *
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6335#section-6
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_rfc6335-23section-2D6&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=_6cen3Hn-e_hOm0BhY7aIpA58dd19Z9qGQsr8-6zYMI&m=r9g1UEMgj8gERHFnIHAPcl_wNNiTuU1MuEAyOEHtg0M&s=Y3I4sW9cQ0UXh8cUXuPymXo9soP2KQFzein5oCkPdKE&e=>
>
> seems clear to me, without making the distinction between TCP and UDP
>
> you mention. There was discussion on the ippm-list IIRC, too.
>
>
>
> Most, if not all, implementations of TWAMP I have seen does not impose
> limitations on the source UDP ports for the TWAMP-test packets when
> configuring via CLI. For example neither Accedian, Exfo, Viavi, Juniper,
> Nokia, Huawei impose any limitation like that when configuring via CLI or
> GUI.
>
>
>
> With a yang model based configuration the user will of course be limited
> if they use the yang model that only defines the ephemeral range as valid.
> I see no severe disadvantages of this, but it would of course have been
> better if the yang model was less restrictive, since the restriction has no
> real value in itself.
>
>
>
> *[acm] ...*except avoiding a port assigned by IANA...
>
>
> Al
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 8:07 PM Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Thanks Henrik. Where does this requirement come from? Also, how do I
> configure the UDP port outside the range using the TWAMP Yang model?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rakesh
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 11:19 AM Henrik Nydell <hnydell@accedian.com>
> wrote:
>
> There is a distinction between "must be able to send to these destination
> ports" and "must only be able to send to these destination ports"
>
>
>
> The first wording does not prohibit senders to be able to send also to
> other destination ports.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 4:57 PM Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Greg,
>
> Many thanks for the reply.
>
> As there are already implementations out there where such restrictions do
> not exist as discussed in another email thread (just forwarded them), the
> following text with MUST is already violated. The TWAMP Yang model
> draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dietf-2Dippm-2Dtwamp-2Dyang-2D13&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=1R8CllooSt2dqOo0-DH2rdXfJekuy3wxuSNLuWjIu-o&s=HR_5ntwVu98MLVsNSbfLkeGlQc_DST02a_jurALHOPQ&e=>
> should also not place such restriction.
>
> Section 4.4
>
>        Thus STAMP Session-Sender MUST be able to send test
>
>        packets to destination UDP port number from the Dynamic and/or
>
>        Private Ports range 49152-65535, test management system should find
> a
>
>        port number that both devices can use.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rakesh
>
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 1:05 PM Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Rakesh,
>
> my apologies for the misspelling of your name.
>
> Thank you for your kind consideration of the proposed update.
>
> Regarding the definition of the range of the valid UDP port numbers,
> draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dietf-2Dippm-2Dtwamp-2Dyang-2D13&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=1R8CllooSt2dqOo0-DH2rdXfJekuy3wxuSNLuWjIu-o&s=HR_5ntwVu98MLVsNSbfLkeGlQc_DST02a_jurALHOPQ&e=> uses
> type dynamic-port-number as follows:
>
>      typedef dynamic-port-number {
>        type inet:port-number {
>          range 49152..65535;
>        }
>        description "Dynamic range for port numbers.";
>      }
>
> to specify the valid range for a sender-udp-port. The range for a UDP port
> number of a Session-Reflector has been specified slightly differently
> because it includes the well-known port 862:
>
>            leaf reflector-udp-port {
>              type inet:port-number {
>                range "862 | 49152..65535";
>                }
>              description
>                "The destination UDP port number used in the
>                 TWAMP-Test (UDP) test packets belonging to this
>                 test session.";
>            }
>
> But, as we observe, in both cases definitions include the Dynamic/Private
> range explicitly defined. I think that keeping STAMP specification
> consistent with the TWAMP, TWAMP YANG data model in particular, in the way
> the valid range of UDP ports is being specified, is beneficial to the STAMP
> document. Hope you'll agree.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 10:53 AM Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Thanks Greg for considering my review comments. Good to see the message
> format aligned with draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv and using MBZ 30. This
> should fix the interoperability issue between the two. This also gives few
> (3) bytes for any future extensions.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> You may fix the spelling of my name and another typo below:
>
> OLD:
>
> and Rakesh Gandi or their
>
>
>
> NEW:
>
> and Rakesh Gandhi for their
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> I did not see following comment addressed. Is that intentional?
>
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 9:11 AM Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>     Thanks Greg for the reply.
>
>
>
>     In this case, should the draft just state that the Session-Sender can
> select destination UDP port number following the guidelines specified in
> [RFC6335], instead of specifying following?
>
>
>
> Section 4.4
>
>     Thus STAMP Session-Sender MUST be able to send test
>
>        packets to destination UDP port number from the Dynamic and/or
>
>        Private Ports range 49152-65535, test management system should find
> a
>
>        port number that both devices can use.
>
> ----------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rakesh
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 1:00 PM Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Rakesh,
>
> thank you for your helpful comments. We've updated the format of the base
> STAMP test packet. Appreciate your feedback on the proposed changes,
> comments and questions,
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 9:27 AM Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Greg,
>
> Regarding the size of the padding, yes, it's good to use the same size
> payload for query and response.
>
> However, the STAMP payload with TLV extension
> (draft-mirsky-ippm-stamp-option-tlv-01) has slightly different padding size
> (27 ( or > 29) vs. 30). Is there a way to make them compatible? Does it
> mean that for STAMP with TLV, Server Octets is set to 1, but it says MBZ 0
> for all 30 bytes. If the responder supports Server Octets and see the size
> > 27, it may find the Server Octet size of 0 confusing?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rakesh
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 7:20 PM Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Shahram,
>
> thank you for the review and questions. Please find my answers below
> tagged GIM>>.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 2:02 PM Shahram Davari <shahram.davari@broadcom.com>
> wrote:
>
> HI Greg
>
>
>
> I read your draft and have the following questions:
>
>
>
> 1) Does it require any UDP/TCP port number or it reuses the one from
> TWAMP? if it reuses from TWAMP then  how does the receiver differentiate
> between TWAMP and STAMP?
>
> GIM>> STAMP uses the well-known UDP port number allocated for the
> OWAMP-Test/TWAMP-Test Receiver port (RFC 8545) as the default destination
> UDP port number.. STAMP may use destination UDP port number from the
> Dynamic and/or Private Ports range 49152-65535.
>
> 2) What is the benefit of STAMO compared to TWAMP?
>
> GIM>> The work was driven by several observations, among them:
>
>    - challenges in achieving interoperability among implementations of
>    TWAMP-Light;
>    - industry interest in standardizing performance monitoring in IP
>    broadband access networks (TR-390);
>    - improve extensibility of IP performance monitoring tool to support
>    measurements, testing of new metrics and parameters, e.g., consistency of
>    CoS in the network.
>
> 3) Why is there so much MBZ byte?
>
> GIM>> It was agreed to make the symmetrical size of STAMP test packets the
> default. RFC 6038 defined it for TWAMP and TR-390 requires it to be
> supported by TWAMP-Light implementations.
>
>
>
> Thx
>
> Shahram
>
>
>
> On Jul 8, 2019, at 10:17 AM, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Mirja,
>
> thank you for the suggested text. The new paragraph now reads as:
>
>       Load of STAMP test packets offered to a network MUST be carefully
>       estimated, and the possible impact on the existing services MUST
>       be thoroughly analyzed before launching the test session.
>       [RFC8085] section 3.1.5 provides guidance on handling network load
>       for UDP-based protocol.  While the characteristic of test traffic
>       depends on the test objective, it is highly recommended to stay in
>       the limits as provided in [RFC8085].
>
>
>
> If it is acceptable, I'd like to upload the updated version of
> draft-ieff-ippm-stamp before the cut-off deadline.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 8:58 AM Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Greg,
>
> See below.
>
> > On 8. Jul 2019, at 16:54, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Mirja,
> > thank you for the reference to RFC 8085. I agree that the document is
> very much relevant and a reference to RFC 8085 in STAMP is useful. While
> reading Section 3.1.3 I came to think that the discussion and guidance in
> other sections of RFC 8085, particularly, Section 3.1.5 Implications of RTT
> and Loss Measurements on Congestion Control. Would adding the reference to
> that section in the new text proposed for the Security Considerations
> section work? I'll put RFC 8085 as Informational reference as it is BCP.
> > NEW TEXT:
> >       Load of STAMP test packets offered to a network MUST be carefully
> >       estimated, and the possible impact on the existing services MUST
> >       be thoroughly analyzed using [RFC8085] and its Section 3.1.5 in
> >       particular before launching the test session....
>
>
> Not sure if “using” is the right word but otherwise fine for me. Or you
> could have a separate sentence like:
>
> “RFC8085 section 3.1.5 provides guidance on handling network load for
> UDP-based protocol. While the characteristic of test traffic depends on the
> test objective, it is highly recommended to say in the limits as provided
> in RFC8085.”
>
> Or something similar…
>
> BCP is the same maturity level as PS. So it wouldn’t be a downref.
> However, I think having this as informational ref is fine.
>
> Mirja
>
>
>
> >
> > Regards,
> > Greg
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 2:37 AM Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
> wrote:
> > Hi Greg,
> >
> > Thanks a lot for you reply. Changes are good. I wonder if it would be
> useful to provide a reference to RFC8085 because it has a lot of
> information about congestion control of UDP based traffic? It recommends to
> send not more than 1 packet per 3 seconds (if RTT is unknown). I guess it
> doesn’t make sense to require this for testing traffic, however, it could
> maybe still be a good recommendation? What do you think?
> >
> > Also I’ve just resend my review to the IPPM list, as I unfortunately
> cc’ed only the IPPM chairs instead of the whole list. Can you resend you
> proposed changes to the list, so other people are aware of these changes.
> Sorry for the unconvience.
> >
> > Mirja
> >
> >
> > > On 6. Jul 2019, at 17:46, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Mirja,
> > > thank you for your thorough review, very pointed and helpful comments.
> Please find my responses in-lined and tagged GIM>>. Attached the diff.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Greg
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 9:10 AM Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
> wrote:
> > > Hi authors, hi all,
> > >
> > > Thanks for this well-written document and very good shepherd write-up!
> I would like discuss one point before I start IETF last call.
> > >
> > > I believe this document should say something about network load and
> congestion (control). OWAMP and TWAMP discuss quite a bit sender
> scheduling, however, as this is a simplified version, so I think it could
> at least be good to put a waring in this document that packet sending
> should be somehow rate limited. I know it might be hard to provide more
> concrete guidance but at least having some discussion or warning in this
> document could be good.
> > > GIM>>  Thank you for your suggestion. Security Considerations section
> points to the fact that STAMP does not include control and management
> components:
> > >    Because of the control
> > >    and management of a STAMP test being outside the scope of this
> > >    specification only the more general requirement is set:
> > > adding the new text here:
> > >       Load of STAMP test packets offered to a network MUST be carefully
> > >       estimated, and the possible impact on the existing services MUST
> > >       be thoroughly analyzed before launching the test session.
> > >
> > >
> > > Another comment: You only say at the very end that a certain UDP port
> is used, which implies that STAMP runs over UDP. However, I think you
> should mention at the very beginning that this is a UDP-based protocol.
> Just to make things crystal clear.
> > > GIM>> Adding the reference to "UDP transport" into the first sentence
> of Theory of  Operations section:
> > >    STAMP Session-Sender transmits test packets over UDP transport
> toward STAMP Session-Reflector.
> > >
> > > Mirja
> > >
> > > P.S.:
> > > Nit: s/This document defines active performance measurement test
> protocol/ This document defines an active performance measurement test
> protocol/
> > > -> “an” missing
> > > GIM>> Thank you. Done.
> > > <Diff_ draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-06.txt -
> draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-07....txt.html>
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> ippm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_ippm&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=1R8CllooSt2dqOo0-DH2rdXfJekuy3wxuSNLuWjIu-o&s=E34uqKmQdO2Vs1uXtW7HIiPr4co6fApp7dRo_EPCiio&e=>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> ippm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_ippm&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=1R8CllooSt2dqOo0-DH2rdXfJekuy3wxuSNLuWjIu-o&s=E34uqKmQdO2Vs1uXtW7HIiPr4co6fApp7dRo_EPCiio&e=>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> *Henrik Nydell*
> *Sr Product Manager*
> 1.866.685.8181
> hnydell@accedian.com
> [image: https://i.xink.io/Images/Get/N63832/a65.png]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__accedian.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=1R8CllooSt2dqOo0-DH2rdXfJekuy3wxuSNLuWjIu-o&s=tAu0zypg68sbTH9kW4JrcYJbC1tOAMX_NwNfNh5QMqQ&e=>
> [image: https://i.xink.io/Images/Get/N63832/f97.png]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_accedian_&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=1R8CllooSt2dqOo0-DH2rdXfJekuy3wxuSNLuWjIu-o&s=w-fFLajYSxdAGnDPgc5eJL9Ke1Fxt_ZUh7g2JxMXFmw&e=>
>  [image: https://i.xink.io/Images/Get/N63832/t99.png]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_Accedian&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=1R8CllooSt2dqOo0-DH2rdXfJekuy3wxuSNLuWjIu-o&s=aLxX-L8YFiio4PJusnMzJACdZYIkFz5kzSYYg33tHXY&e=>
>  [image: https://i.xink.io/Images/Get/N63832/l54.png]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.linkedin.com_company_accedian-2Dnetworks-3ForiginalSubdomain-3Dca&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=1R8CllooSt2dqOo0-DH2rdXfJekuy3wxuSNLuWjIu-o&s=aV10PvZ65gihBtrcyRfWWFZ3Opvaf3e4gzQ9pRJIum0&e=>
> [image: https://i.xink.io/Images/Get/N63832/l.jpg]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.accedian.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=1R8CllooSt2dqOo0-DH2rdXfJekuy3wxuSNLuWjIu-o&s=PowT9C9_E09Yg8toWCa4x0cfFsepQJ8D1Dhd9LZ1az4&e=>
> *accedian.com
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__accedian.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=1R8CllooSt2dqOo0-DH2rdXfJekuy3wxuSNLuWjIu-o&s=tAu0zypg68sbTH9kW4JrcYJbC1tOAMX_NwNfNh5QMqQ&e=>*
>
>
>
> Avis de confidentialité
>
> Les informations contenues dans le présent message et dans toute pièce qui
> lui est jointe sont confidentielles et peuvent être protégées par le secret
> professionnel. Ces informations sont à l’usage exclusif de son ou de ses
> destinataires. Si vous recevez ce message par erreur, veuillez s’il vous
> plait communiquer immédiatement avec l’expéditeur et en détruire tout
> exemplaire. De plus, il vous est strictement interdit de le divulguer, de
> le distribuer ou de le reproduire sans l’autorisation de l’expéditeur.
> Merci.
>
> Confidentiality notice
>
> This e-mail message and any attachment hereto contain confidential
> information which may be privileged and which is intended for the exclusive
> use of its addressee(s). If you receive this message in error, please
> inform sender immediately and destroy any copy thereof. Furthermore, any
> disclosure, distribution or copying of this message and/or any attachment
> hereto without the consent of the sender is strictly prohibited. Thank you.
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> *Henrik Nydell*
> *Sr Product Manager*
> 1.866.685.8181
> hnydell@accedian.com
> [image: https://i.xink.io/Images/Get/N63832/a65.png]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__accedian.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=1R8CllooSt2dqOo0-DH2rdXfJekuy3wxuSNLuWjIu-o&s=tAu0zypg68sbTH9kW4JrcYJbC1tOAMX_NwNfNh5QMqQ&e=>
> [image: https://i.xink.io/Images/Get/N63832/f97.png]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_accedian_&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=1R8CllooSt2dqOo0-DH2rdXfJekuy3wxuSNLuWjIu-o&s=w-fFLajYSxdAGnDPgc5eJL9Ke1Fxt_ZUh7g2JxMXFmw&e=>
>  [image: https://i.xink.io/Images/Get/N63832/t99.png]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_Accedian&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=1R8CllooSt2dqOo0-DH2rdXfJekuy3wxuSNLuWjIu-o&s=aLxX-L8YFiio4PJusnMzJACdZYIkFz5kzSYYg33tHXY&e=>
>  [image: https://i.xink.io/Images/Get/N63832/l54.png]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.linkedin.com_company_accedian-2Dnetworks-3ForiginalSubdomain-3Dca&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=1R8CllooSt2dqOo0-DH2rdXfJekuy3wxuSNLuWjIu-o&s=aV10PvZ65gihBtrcyRfWWFZ3Opvaf3e4gzQ9pRJIum0&e=>
> [image: https://i.xink.io/Images/Get/N63832/l.jpg]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.accedian.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=1R8CllooSt2dqOo0-DH2rdXfJekuy3wxuSNLuWjIu-o&s=PowT9C9_E09Yg8toWCa4x0cfFsepQJ8D1Dhd9LZ1az4&e=>
> *accedian.com
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__accedian.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=1R8CllooSt2dqOo0-DH2rdXfJekuy3wxuSNLuWjIu-o&s=tAu0zypg68sbTH9kW4JrcYJbC1tOAMX_NwNfNh5QMqQ&e=>*
>
>
>
> Avis de confidentialité
>
> Les informations contenues dans le présent message et dans toute pièce qui
> lui est jointe sont confidentielles et peuvent être protégées par le secret
> professionnel. Ces informations sont à l’usage exclusif de son ou de ses
> destinataires. Si vous recevez ce message par erreur, veuillez s’il vous
> plait communiquer immédiatement avec l’expéditeur et en détruire tout
> exemplaire. De plus, il vous est strictement interdit de le divulguer, de
> le distribuer ou de le reproduire sans l’autorisation de l’expéditeur.
> Merci.
>
> Confidentiality notice
>
> This e-mail message and any attachment hereto contain confidential
> information which may be privileged and which is intended for the exclusive
> use of its addressee(s). If you receive this message in error, please
> inform sender immediately and destroy any copy thereof. Furthermore, any
> disclosure, distribution or copying of this message and/or any attachment
> hereto without the consent of the sender is strictly prohibited. Thank you.
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> *Henrik Nydell*
> *Sr Product Manager*
> 1.866.685.8181
> hnydell@accedian.com
> [image: https://i.xink.io/Images/Get/N63832/a65.png]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__accedian.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=_6cen3Hn-e_hOm0BhY7aIpA58dd19Z9qGQsr8-6zYMI&m=r9g1UEMgj8gERHFnIHAPcl_wNNiTuU1MuEAyOEHtg0M&s=UXlLLIWQPztVoCaATnyldPuiq5cMx4soEbPTGjmsJQE&e=>
> [image: https://i.xink.io/Images/Get/N63832/f97.png]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_accedian_&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=_6cen3Hn-e_hOm0BhY7aIpA58dd19Z9qGQsr8-6zYMI&m=r9g1UEMgj8gERHFnIHAPcl_wNNiTuU1MuEAyOEHtg0M&s=0ltpwFIjvuZ8sVhjuD2RN1tIgObw07RIgL_4j3vK9Zc&e=>
>  [image: https://i.xink.io/Images/Get/N63832/t99.png]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_Accedian&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=_6cen3Hn-e_hOm0BhY7aIpA58dd19Z9qGQsr8-6zYMI&m=r9g1UEMgj8gERHFnIHAPcl_wNNiTuU1MuEAyOEHtg0M&s=QTHdaq6bXMydVVJSnS8pfuhqEnLCWzO0tP9A-gyMWBA&e=>
>  [image: https://i.xink.io/Images/Get/N63832/l54.png]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.linkedin.com_company_accedian-2Dnetworks-3ForiginalSubdomain-3Dca&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=_6cen3Hn-e_hOm0BhY7aIpA58dd19Z9qGQsr8-6zYMI&m=r9g1UEMgj8gERHFnIHAPcl_wNNiTuU1MuEAyOEHtg0M&s=V_ehVarzjW8vvOqJeyq61146LyKQ_Rgz1fNJzJw1waI&e=>
> [image: https://i.xink.io/Images/Get/N63832/l.jpg]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.accedian.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=_6cen3Hn-e_hOm0BhY7aIpA58dd19Z9qGQsr8-6zYMI&m=r9g1UEMgj8gERHFnIHAPcl_wNNiTuU1MuEAyOEHtg0M&s=9V6-ggZb009wP2eti0vCu9OWNz1EgxcbDPqe0xCailk&e=>
> *accedian.com
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__accedian.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=_6cen3Hn-e_hOm0BhY7aIpA58dd19Z9qGQsr8-6zYMI&m=r9g1UEMgj8gERHFnIHAPcl_wNNiTuU1MuEAyOEHtg0M&s=UXlLLIWQPztVoCaATnyldPuiq5cMx4soEbPTGjmsJQE&e=>*
>
>
>
> Avis de confidentialité
>
> Les informations contenues dans le présent message et dans toute pièce qui
> lui est jointe sont confidentielles et peuvent être protégées par le secret
> professionnel. Ces informations sont à l’usage exclusif de son ou de ses
> destinataires. Si vous recevez ce message par erreur, veuillez s’il vous
> plait communiquer immédiatement avec l’expéditeur et en détruire tout
> exemplaire. De plus, il vous est strictement interdit de le divulguer, de
> le distribuer ou de le reproduire sans l’autorisation de l’expéditeur.
> Merci.
>
> Confidentiality notice
>
> This e-mail message and any attachment hereto contain confidential
> information which may be privileged and which is intended for the exclusive
> use of its addressee(s). If you receive this message in error, please
> inform sender immediately and destroy any copy thereof. Furthermore, any
> disclosure, distribution or copying of this message and/or any attachment
> hereto without the consent of the sender is strictly prohibited. Thank you.
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> *Henrik Nydell*
> *Sr Product Manager*
> 1.866.685.8181
> hnydell@accedian.com
> [image: https://i.xink.io/Images/Get/N63832/a65.png]
> <http://accedian.com/>
> [image: https://i.xink.io/Images/Get/N63832/f97.png]
> <https://www.facebook.com/accedian/> [image:
> https://i.xink.io/Images/Get/N63832/t99.png]
> <https://twitter.com/Accedian> [image:
> https://i.xink.io/Images/Get/N63832/l54.png]
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/accedian-networks?originalSubdomain=ca>
> [image: https://i.xink.io/Images/Get/N63832/l.jpg]
> <http://www.accedian.com/>
> *accedian.com <http://accedian.com>*
>
>
>
> Avis de confidentialité
>
> Les informations contenues dans le présent message et dans toute pièce qui
> lui est jointe sont confidentielles et peuvent être protégées par le secret
> professionnel. Ces informations sont à l’usage exclusif de son ou de ses
> destinataires. Si vous recevez ce message par erreur, veuillez s’il vous
> plait communiquer immédiatement avec l’expéditeur et en détruire tout
> exemplaire. De plus, il vous est strictement interdit de le divulguer, de
> le distribuer ou de le reproduire sans l’autorisation de l’expéditeur.
> Merci.
>
> Confidentiality notice
>
> This e-mail message and any attachment hereto contain confidential
> information which may be privileged and which is intended for the exclusive
> use of its addressee(s). If you receive this message in error, please
> inform sender immediately and destroy any copy thereof. Furthermore, any
> disclosure, distribution or copying of this message and/or any attachment
> hereto without the consent of the sender is strictly prohibited. Thank you.
>


-- 

*Henrik Nydell*
*Sr Product Manager*
1.866.685.8181
hnydell@accedian.com
<http://accedian.com>
<https://www.facebook.com/accedian/>  <https://twitter.com/Accedian>
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/accedian-networks?originalSubdomain=ca>
<http://www.accedian.com>
*accedian.com <http://accedian.com>*

-- 


Avis de confidentialité

Les
 informations contenues dans le présent 
message et dans toute pièce qui 
lui est jointe sont confidentielles et 
peuvent être protégées par le 
secret professionnel. Ces informations sont 
à l’usage exclusif de son ou
 de ses destinataires. Si vous recevez ce 
message par erreur, veuillez 
s’il vous plait communiquer immédiatement 
avec l’expéditeur et en 
détruire tout exemplaire. De plus, il vous est 
strictement interdit de 
le divulguer, de le distribuer ou de le reproduire 
sans l’autorisation 
de l’expéditeur. Merci.


Confidentiality notice

This

 e-mail message and any attachment hereto contain confidential 
information 
which may be privileged and which is intended for the 
exclusive use of its 
addressee(s). If you receive this message in error,
 please inform sender 
immediately and destroy any copy thereof. 
Furthermore, any disclosure, 
distribution or copying of this message 
and/or any attachment hereto 
without the consent of the sender is 
strictly prohibited. Thank you.