IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ippm] Updates to twamp light/stamp messages

xiao.min2@zte.com.cn Fri, 13 March 2020 02:52 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 0D96F3A0E79; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 19:52:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 KAWCRumUwsye; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 19:52:28 -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 2BFFF3A0E7A; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 19:52:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxct.zte.com.cn (unknown [192.168.164.217]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id 27DF4EBB79BCF5F02E1F; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 10:52:25 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mse-fl2.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.14.239]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id D4F98F5B79E83C07E02A; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 10:52:24 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njxapp03.zte.com.cn ([10.41.132.202]) by mse-fl2.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 02D2lZKH091566; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 10:47:35 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from xiao.min2@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njxapp01[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid201; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 10:47:35 +0800 (CST)
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 10:47:35 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2af95e6af44787800d91
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <202003131047352250125@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <CAMZsk6cv4vGuD1GD4zysyYwEO=PeVAyj5=-PnKyOkrxb9D3k3Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: CAMZsk6cdrZz7ojexUXSc9WHxvz=URM8G-Y8czcbYtSLYkRYCrw@mail.gmail.com, CAMZsk6cv4vGuD1GD4zysyYwEO=PeVAyj5=-PnKyOkrxb9D3k3Q@mail.gmail.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
To: rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com
Cc: ippm@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv@ietf.org, mach.chen@huawei.com, ippm-chairs@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl2.zte.com.cn 02D2lZKH091566
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/qkWiQkwZODr9IIuvYva5MJF7X3w>
Subject: Re: [ippm] Updates to twamp light/stamp messages
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, 13 Mar 2020 02:52:31 -0000

Hi Rakesh,






I agree with Greg that Option 4 is preferable. In addition, Option 5 is also acceptable to me.


Some more clarifications are as follows.


During the discussion among the co-authors of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv, it was agreed that 16-bit Session ID length is enough, if there is different opinion, please let us know.


Option 3 puts Session ID in a TLV, but as I understand, Session ID is preferably placed in a fixed position of the test packets.


Option 2 puts 24-bit Session ID in a fixed position, besides the drawback you mentioned in the slide, we realized it's also difficult to find a good place in authenticated test packets.






Best Regards,


Xiao Min



原始邮件



发件人：RakeshGandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>
收件人：肖敏10093570;
抄送人：IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>;draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv@ietf.org <draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv@ietf.org>;Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>;IPPM Chairs <ippm-chairs@ietf.org>;
日 期 ：2020年03月12日 21:56
主 题 ：Re: [ippm] Updates to twamp light/stamp messages



Hi Xiao,
Thanks for your comments.
For STAMP messages, do you have any thoughts on the options 1-4?

Thanks,
Rakesh







On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 10:14 PM <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn> wrote:


Hi Rakesh,







I'm a bit confused why separate TWAMP-Light and STAMP messages need to be defined, because as  I understand STAMP can be seen as the standardized and enhanced version of TWAMP-Light, and STAMP is backward compatible with the existing TWAMP-Light implementations.






Best Regards,


Xiao Min



原始邮件


发件人：RakeshGandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>
收件人：IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>;draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv@ietf.org <draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv@ietf.org>;Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>;
抄送人：IPPM Chairs <ippm-chairs@ietf.org>;
日 期 ：2020年03月12日 06:36
主 题 ：[ippm] Updates to twamp light/stamp messages

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


Hi WG,


I have prepared few slides as follows to discuss the various options for adding session id and control code in the twamp light and stamp messages. 



https://github.com/rakgandhi/ietf-public/blob/master/ietf-stamp-session-id-rev1.pdf






Drafts discussed are:



draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-srpm


draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv






Welcome your comments and suggestions.







Thanks,


Rakesh

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email