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

Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 19 August 2019 16:38 UTC

Return-Path: <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.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 3C9371200D7; Mon, 19 Aug 2019 09:38:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 zg0hZMsoQih0; Mon, 19 Aug 2019 09:38:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x243.google.com (mail-lj1-x243.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::243]) (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 3D11312001E; Mon, 19 Aug 2019 09:38:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x243.google.com with SMTP id x18so2386447ljh.1; Mon, 19 Aug 2019 09:38:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=0JhBPS8JLvsWuBkwD4WNEKQ4JT6e8ZkeDqA6xFa3q3o=; b=T1n8QQGXUpy2lb2LRO4bRT+BXDK+yK9yft+Dd41VztInbso5CS/PDKUFwibsunnR4j FlORWJoF9paEHuXq8fKvryiBAhoJaQhUHXn/fXYyk3gpYe1xWW/KhsfCZyjWr+FeZfpe eFYOy5/7iRQ/4rINP+yRNLQI/o02fcNrYpDXH+ysrePmYti1RV2NP2MDVihCSOHTWIiA kPFXNr6HvL8qyXsXxXzV7+PXdIfZLNFKue2uQoUBMCOSgm3ejDUmlN0RJo3xXhO7C+X/ Sr2kqJiBiVMI54jICvBbMDYgxLUtwapk+zjhmFN6IkM1IjnomwJzCvJBxJouZ1nmuSLm 51OQ==
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=0JhBPS8JLvsWuBkwD4WNEKQ4JT6e8ZkeDqA6xFa3q3o=; b=RZf5faIDd3Q9hQNl4mIiLoaJxb6+Yo4kHxyAvENppjnbG+bQWFBNKWpjEC8XrjbgZa ENxa+zudbfpCA+tnwGwlVPe7BLDm+IlFC9MpoThDqdCfqP2Ig777IKi+tuJKRg/YzIvA Y6mYyL4hXOS8gWp0bSPcc+/Vpvz/CjBJwpgoWAElypa3V9SqQUulmnNz8HkvesAsSOte fqha0TNeDhuQ91t/j7cXK9yUm76anzH11wLCqbI+yj3c4eBHnZ4+yRiON5v38yNmYIcq 7DeaCeD0GJqAODuu+uyRzFF8ify1LGeFwshlRj4gV5Su+w48JHq8f773o0JQ0fErTp83 fbhQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXv4haBxFC3V8IhLpfip5zK+5dEzltD4SEEcWCpops3w6tqM/bx hZz0q96iCndBtK99K4i+pHkBf1JolhfUKuMlJg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzG0acXkEmGqhoCw3RPFYe6bDr3oVsM4NkC/RpOgwEZkY2E9cO5NW0KoQz82Iik7cx8p7S9sIJI0sW92vDIv5Y=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:800a:: with SMTP id j10mr13189088ljg.137.1566232734325; Mon, 19 Aug 2019 09:38:54 -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> <CAMZsk6e=eDds8fEWgqTs6anYb0m2jciZ7EHBtNtNWp3i6s+0=w@mail.gmail.com> <CH2PR04MB657072ABD626806915BC94F7CBAC0@CH2PR04MB6570.namprd04.prod.outlook.com> <CAMZsk6dSJABREi2RpLi7qg6ocvfr0fouhkDNisjS03D2ygXm_A@mail.gmail.com> <34941CF8-B658-4B15-A6BB-403457CD78CC@kuehlewind.net>
In-Reply-To: <34941CF8-B658-4B15-A6BB-403457CD78CC@kuehlewind.net>
From: Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2019 12:38:42 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMZsk6cXcjLoc_sGbcrkgTM=cdcfA-hdLshqFEwH0zpTVQ=BwQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
Cc: "Civil, Ruth" <gcivil@ciena.com>, Henrik Nydell <hnydell@accedian.com>, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>, "rrahman@cisco.com" <rrahman@cisco.com>, Shahram Davari <shahram.davari@broadcom.com>, "draft-ietf-ippm-stamp@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ippm-stamp@ietf.org>, IPPM Chairs <ippm-chairs@ietf.org>, IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c3de9005907af907"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/lufZHJR1qjW-Ayb-XWBMxGSIGHw>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 19 Aug 2019 09:53:40 -0700
Subject: Re: [ippm] [**EXTERNAL**] Re: 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: Mon, 19 Aug 2019 16:38:58 -0000

Hi Mirja,
Thanks for your comments, yes, such appropriate caveat can be added for the
user port range in the TWAMP Yang mode.

Thanks,
Rakesh


On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 11:25 AM Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>;
wrote:

> Hi Rakesh,
>
> Just quickly a comment on this bit:
>
> > On 19. Aug 2019, at 17:12, Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>; wrote:
> >
> > TWAMP Yang model [draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang-13] can also support the
> range to allow user ports. An example caveat is specified in
> [draft-ietf-tram-turnbis-29]
> > as "unless the TURN server application knows, through some means not
> >    specified here, that other applications running on the same host as
> the TURN server application will not be impacted by allocating ports
> outside this range. "
> >
> I don’t think it is the same thing for turn and stamp/twamp.
>
> In turn you aim at actually opening a connection to a remote endpoint and
> need to make sure that that endpoint is talking the same protocol as you
> do. That remote endpoint might actually implement different services on
> different ports.
>
> TWAMP is used for testing, therefore it could make sense to set up a
> testing server that listens on exactly the same port as your application
> would usually do. Yes, when using twamp on such ports, you have to make
> sure that your twamp server does not implement another protocol on that
> port but often these server are decided for testing only and preconfigured
> in a respective way.
>
> Mirja
>
>
>