Re: Request for comments: draft-jain-nvo3-overlay-oam-01.txt

Thomas Nadeau <tnadeau@lucidvision.com> Thu, 27 February 2014 16:05 UTC

Return-Path: <tnadeau@lucidvision.com>
X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75B511A027E for <l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Feb 2014 08:05:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.446
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.446 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547] autolearn=ham
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 uFgZ0_1BZxId for <l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Feb 2014 08:05:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lucidvision.com (lucidvision.com [72.71.250.34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 186211A0286 for <l2vpn@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Feb 2014 08:05:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.122] (static-72-71-250-38.cncdnh.fast04.myfairpoint.net [72.71.250.38]) by lucidvision.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5ADBF270AFD1; Thu, 27 Feb 2014 11:05:41 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_1EC42B37-1AB7-4504-AD3A-B9DAFC113AC9"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
Subject: Re: Request for comments: draft-jain-nvo3-overlay-oam-01.txt
From: Thomas Nadeau <tnadeau@lucidvision.com>
In-Reply-To: <CF351FD5.B21EA%wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 11:05:40 -0500
Message-Id: <D26A6EDE-42D3-45A6-8FFC-3B1850433722@lucidvision.com>
References: <CAPCgso32vYqPEq4upa1FG78quZwBOJpzsCSCYTX2R7XgHzLiNA@mail.gmail.com> <B23247FA-7CED-4F78-8858-076CA83F613C@broadcom.com> <CF351FD5.B21EA%wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: "Henderickx, Wim (Wim)" <wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/l2vpn/KUB4-IB6nBPGsFs4IJOzA2htRIA
Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" <l2vpn@ietf.org>, Pradeep Jain <pradeep@nuagenetworks.net>, Vinay Bannai <vbannai@paypal.com>, Ravi Shekhar <rshekhar@juniper.net>
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks <l2vpn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/l2vpn>, <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/l2vpn/>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>, <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 16:05:45 -0000

	The question is, and perhaps the draft could explain this, is why existing tools a) are insufficient and b) cannot be modified.
Operationally speaking, b is preferred if you ask me as learning a new tool/model for diagnosis and trouble-shooting is expensive and painful.
For example, if we took the tact of reinventing say IP ping for every underlying transport, then we'd have 50 tools by now.

	--Tom



On Feb 27, 2014:11:02 AM, at 11:02 AM, Henderickx, Wim (Wim) <wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com> wrote:

> Because we also need to trace L2 endpoints besides IP endpoint.
> 
> From: Shahram Davari <davari@broadcom.com>
> Date: Thursday 27 February 2014 16:58
> To: Kanwar Singh <kanwar@nuagenetworks.net>
> Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" <l2vpn@ietf.org>rg>, Pradeep Jain <pradeep@nuagenetworks.net>et>, Vinay Bannai <vbannai@paypal.com>om>, Ravi Shekhar <rshekhar@juniper.net>
> Subject: Re: Request for comments: draft-jain-nvo3-overlay-oam-01.txt
> 
> Hi
> 
> Why don't you use existing IP based OAM messages such as BFD, OWAMP, TWAMP, etc.
> 
> Regards,
> Shahram
> 
> 
> On Feb 27, 2014, at 7:46 AM, "Kanwar Singh" <kanwar@nuagenetworks.net> wrote:
> 
>> Dear All,
>> 
>> We have submitted the below draft that proposes Generic OAM and Datapath Failure Detection Mechanism(s) for Overlay Networks.
>> 
>> We would like to solicit inputs from the members of L2VPN WG.
>> 
>> Please review the same and update us with your inputs/feedback.
>> 
>> Warm Regards
>> - Kanwar
>> 
>> 
>> A new version of I-D, draft-jain-nvo3-overlay-oam-01.txt has been successfully submitted by Kanwar Singh and posted to the
>> IETF repository.
>> 
>> Name:           draft-jain-nvo3-overlay-oam
>> Revision:       01
>> Title:          Generic Overlay OAM and Datapath Failure Detection
>> Document date:  2014-02-12
>> Group:          Individual Submission
>> Pages:          44
>> URL:            http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-jain-nvo3-overlay-oam-01.txt
>> Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jain-nvo3-overlay-oam/
>> Htmlized:      http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jain-nvo3-overlay-oam-01
>> Diff:              http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-jain-nvo3-overlay-oam-01
>> 
>> Abstract:
>>    This proposal describes a mechanism that can be used to detect Data
>>    Path Failures of various overlay technologies as VXLAN, NVGRE,
>>    MPLSoGRE and MPLSoUDP and verifying/sanity of their Control and Data
>>    Plane for given Overlay Segment.  This document defines the following
>>    for each of the above Overlay Technologies:
>> 
>>    o  Encapsulation of OAM Packet, such that it has same Outer and
>>       Overlay Header as any End-System's data going over the same
>>       Overlay Segment.
>> 
>>    o  The mechanism to trace the Underlay that is exercised by any
>>       Overlay Segment.
>> 
>>    o  Procedure to verify presence of any given Tenant VM or End-System
>>       within a given Overlay Segment at Overlay End-Point.
>> 
>>    Even though the present proposal addresses Overlay OAM for VXLAN,
>>    NVGRE, MPLSoGRE and MPLSoUDP, but the procedures described are
>>    generic enough to accommodate OAM for any other Overlay Technology.