Re: [Lime-oam-model] OAM Model analisys. First cut

Gregory Mirsky <> Thu, 05 February 2015 06:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A87991A0277 for <>; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 22:58:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.75
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.75 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6-iuBB2NvnZJ for <>; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 22:58:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 688F31A0203 for <>; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 22:58:53 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c6180641-f79916d00000623a-13-54d2b5346d97
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 92.EF.25146.435B2D45; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 01:11:33 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0210.002; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 01:58:51 -0500
From: Gregory Mirsky <>
To: Qin Wu <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: OAM Model analisys. First cut
Thread-Index: AdBAGLchPnwAqsj7QQeQPOqM2IiiYgAA/89QACWrxLAAD3xGoAAG1bHgAAA8b+AAAJz3QA==
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 06:58:51 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="_004_7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B8ED5FEeusaamb103erics_"; type="multipart/alternative"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFtrJIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXRPlK7p1kshBi2tPBaP5y5gtehZ3czs wOTRcuQtq8eSJT+ZApiiuGxSUnMyy1KL9O0SuDK2Nj5mLLi6kL1i56GZ7A2MX/6xdTFyckgI mEis3fKbEcIWk7hwbz1QnItDSOAIo0Tv2pMsEM4yRomDq3vYQarYBIwkXmyEsEUEwiQeNs4C s4UFtCQWnJrICBHXlvj49zITTM21fadZQGwWARWJQ9d2Am3g4OAV8JX4f08RYv5OZomz56aB 9XIC1b+79BXsOkagi76fWgM2h1lAXOLWk/lMEJeKSDy8eBrqA1GJl4//sULYShJzXl9jBhnK LNDNKDH//HewBK+AoMTJmU9YJjCKzEIyaxayullI6mYBHcgskC+x4nolRL2WxLyG30wQtqLE lO6H7BC2psSVyYegbG2JZQtfM0PYuhLTJxyBq5+9/BUjxC5gQK6/tB8qoSPxsXUaM7KhCxh5 VzFylBanluWmGxluYgTG9TEJNscdjAs+WR5iFOBgVOLhNci5FCLEmlhWXJl7iFGag0VJnLfs ysEQIYH0xJLU7NTUgtSi+KLSnNTiQ4xMHJxSDYwazF7vbsyftL39trKrwD7Hmblq5+4sO/hp ueOje0ekll54Li6ixuB788jUrgkerGdjYi8E9S2MTdlsrPnk2wu/KXMXN27acG75yrcNK+wE tLv37Sl+znDTdmvS7E6hqVpcsjIXPkzl/7/jQY3gV8XDiabTtzSXBvXVphTXsARVrmXdl7bf /8hrJZbijERDLeai4kQAOlNs/8wCAAA=
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Lime-oam-model] OAM Model analisys. First cut
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: LIME WG OAM Model Design Team <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 06:58:56 -0000

Hi Qin,
there’s no surprise that CFM and Y.1731 follow the same model. Nor that MEF documents you’ve referenced so close to Y.1731, since Carrier Ethernet is, in fact and for practical purposes, Y.1731. And for those who followed MPLS-TP JWT strong resemblance of Y.1731 is not surprise either.
What I think we’re trying to establish is whether there is enough commonality between IP/IP-based OAM models and CFM/Y.1731/MPLS-TP/TRILL OAM.


From: Qin Wu []
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2015 10:50 PM
To: Gregory Mirsky;
Subject: RE: OAM Model analisys. First cut

Here is my point.
Using any model from other SDOs as basis doesn’t mean we step into other SDO territory.
From Several reference document I listed, we can see what are LIME related work?
What commonality are they sharing?
e.g., IEEE 802.1Q based model is similar to Y.1731 based model
MEF 38 and MEF39 use 802.1Q based model, i.e., CFM model.
RFC6371 uses Y.1731 based model as basis.
We should not deny this fact, we should not neglect non-IETF work by worrying about stepping into other SDO territory.

发件人: Gregory Mirsky []
发送时间: 2015年2月5日 14:30
收件人: Qin Wu;<>
主题: RE: OAM Model analisys. First cut

Hi Qin,
many thanks for your suggestion. I think that we should define the scope of our discussion. I believe that non-IETF technologies should be out of scope and only IETF ones analyzed. That is why I’ve included only IP, IP/MPLS, MPLS-TP and TRILL. If we to use the list of references, then we may be stepping into IEEE, ITU-T and MEF territory. Hope our WG chairs can clarify that.


From: Qin Wu []
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2015 7:15 PM
To: Gregory Mirsky;<>
Subject: RE: OAM Model analisys. First cut

One thing I am surprising is there is no references have been provided for this analysis.
If we have all the referenced document put together, it will be easy to help us to find what
are common things in these various OAM technologies.
e.g., some references I can provide include:
a. IEEE 802.1Q
b. ITU-T Y.1731
c.  MPLS-TP OAM model in the section 4 of RFC6371
d. MEF-38 Service OAM Fault Management YANG Modules Technical Specification
e. MEF-39 Service OAM Performance Monitoring YANG Module Technical Specification

发件人: Gregory Mirsky []
发送时间: 2015年2月5日 3:55
收件人: Qin Wu;<>
主题: RE: OAM Model analisys. First cut

Hi Qin,
I believe that LIME charter is not to develop new OAM tools but to work on OAM data model that is relevant to all or some OAM models. If some OAM models do not have some of functions we find in other models, then we can flag that and discuss but in other group. The table you find in my writing is only start of what OAM model analysis may look like. I’d like the team to review it and help with comments and suggestions to extend the table. Then we can come to informed decision on what is common among IETF OAM models and discuss how useful data model of that common set may be.


From: Qin Wu []
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 6:03 PM
To: Gregory Mirsky;<>
Subject: RE: OAM Model analisys. First cut

What conclusion do you make from this analysis? Do you want to make BDI and FDI being supported as common OAM function? Or do you want to make linktrace and loop back layer independent? Aren’t linktrace and loopback Ethernet specific functions?
I think the example you give in the table 1 gets complete alignment with the Table 4 in the section 5.2 of RFC7276.
That is to say Continuity Check, Connectivity Verification, Path Discovery, Performance measurement are common OAM functions for the all the OAM technologies.
Besides Common OAM functions, we also have fault domain, test point, addressing, technology type, sub technology type, specific layer. They are all common things
for all the OAM technologies.

发件人: Lime-oam-model [] 代表 Gregory Mirsky
发送时间: 2015年2月4日 9:22
主题: [Lime-oam-model] OAM Model analisys. First cut

Dear All,
apologies for belated update. Attached please find first cut of the proposal for approach to OAM Model comparison and example of it being used.

Your questions, comments, suggestions always welcome and greatly appreciated.