IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ippm] Call for adoption of PM on LAG

Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn> Fri, 02 September 2022 06:59 UTC

Return-Path: <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.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 29E7BC1522A3 for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Sep 2022 23:59:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.906
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.906 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Zr1mbgqFY5bY for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Sep 2022 23:59:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-m121145.qiye.163.com (mail-m121145.qiye.163.com [115.236.121.145]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1955C14CE21 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Sep 2022 23:59:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOP2IOH5QC (unknown [219.142.69.75]) by mail-m121145.qiye.163.com (Hmail) with ESMTPA id DF6468000B8; Fri, 2 Sep 2022 14:59:21 +0800 (CST)
From: Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>
To: 'Marcus Ihlar' <marcus.ihlar=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, 'IETF IPPM WG' <ippm@ietf.org>
References: <AM0PR07MB4131BFFD304468FA4CCD0484E27B9@AM0PR07MB4131.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <AM0PR07MB4131BFFD304468FA4CCD0484E27B9@AM0PR07MB4131.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2022 14:59:20 +0800
Message-ID: <001201d8be99$86f29c30$94d7d490$@tsinghua.org.cn>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0013_01D8BEDC.95182620"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQL9zkW5z9chr3qE85k8DkVuSpsYzKuBj+PQ
Content-Language: zh-cn
X-HM-Spam-Status: e1kfGhgUHx5ZQUpXWQgPGg8OCBgUHx5ZQUlOS1dZFg8aDwILHllBWSg2Ly tZV1koWUFKTEtLSjdXWS1ZQUlXWQ8JGhUIEh9ZQVkZSUlJVklNQ0gdTBhCHU8YTVUTARMWGhIXJB QOD1lXWRgSC1lBWUlKQlVKT0lVTUJVTE5ZV1kWGg8SFR0UWUFZT0tIVUpKS09ISFVKS0tZBg++
X-HM-Sender-Digest: e1kMHhlZQR0aFwgeV1kSHx4VD1lBWUc6PSo6EBw4HT02TkI9Mi0eHS8a SgwaCgFVSlVKTU1JSktKQk1JT0lIVTMWGhIXVQwaFRwaEhEOFTsPCBIVHBMOGlUUCRxVGBVFWVdZ EgtZQVlJSkJVSk9JVU1CVUxOWVdZCAFZQUpPS0lKNwY+
X-HM-Tid: 0a82fcff3cfeb03akuuudf6468000b8
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/veiA-kxgIHo6CLZoX45HBULP1Mw>
Subject: Re: [ippm] Call for adoption of PM on LAG
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 02 Sep 2022 06:59:27 -0000

Hi, All:

 

Support its adoption.  

I think they are useful to measure the performance of member link of a LAG to facilitate the assignment of application traffic to the necessary path.

 

One suggestions to these documents:

1)     Should these document include some error-handling encoding and procedures? I notice that there are some situation that the send/receive information may be mismatch, adding the error information can certainly help to solve them.

 

 

Best Regards

 

Aijun Wang

China Telecom

 

From: ippm-bounces@ietf.org <ippm-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Marcus Ihlar
Sent: Friday, September 2, 2022 12:44 AM
To: IETF IPPM WG (ippm@ietf.org) <ippm@ietf.org>
Subject: [ippm] Call for adoption of PM on LAG

 

Hello IPPM,

This email starts an adoption call in the IPPM working group for the draft-li-ippm-stamp-on-lag and draft-li-ippm-otwamp-on-lag documents. These documents extend STAMP, OWAMP and TWAMP to support performance measurements on member links of a Link Aggregation Group.

 

The first draft specifies an extension to STAMP and can be found here:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-ippm-stamp-on-lag/ 

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-li-ippm-stamp-on-lag/ 

 

The second draft specifies extensions to OWAMP and TWAMP and can be found here:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-ippm-otwamp-on-lag/

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-li-ippm-otwamp-on-lag/

 

Please reply to this email by Thursday September 15, to indicate whether you support adoption of these documents.

 

BR

Marcus & Tommy

v2.14.0 | Report a Bug | By Email