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

Aijun Wang <> Fri, 02 September 2022 06:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29E7BC1522A3 for <>; Thu, 1 Sep 2022 23:59:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.906
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Zr1mbgqFY5bY for <>; Thu, 1 Sep 2022 23:59:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1955C14CE21 for <>; Thu, 1 Sep 2022 23:59:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOP2IOH5QC (unknown []) by (Hmail) with ESMTPA id DF6468000B8; Fri, 2 Sep 2022 14:59:21 +0800 (CST)
From: Aijun Wang <>
To: 'Marcus Ihlar' <>, 'IETF IPPM WG' <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2022 14:59:20 +0800
Message-ID: <001201d8be99$86f29c30$94d7d490$>
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-Tid: 0a82fcff3cfeb03akuuudf6468000b8
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [ippm] Call for adoption of PM on LAG
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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: <> On Behalf Of Marcus Ihlar
Sent: Friday, September 2, 2022 12:44 AM
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: 


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


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



Marcus & Tommy