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

Gregory Mirsky <> Thu, 05 February 2015 06:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC4D91A0AC8 for <>; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 22:30:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.749
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_06=0.001, 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 nUG2lXCXRQRT for <>; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 22:30:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DDE6C1A038E for <>; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 22:30:33 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c618062d-f79376d000000ceb-99-54d2bab417a5
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id F2.52.03307.4BAB2D45; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 01:35:01 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0210.002; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 01:30:24 -0500
From: Gregory Mirsky <>
To: Qin Wu <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: OAM Model analisys. First cut
Thread-Index: AdBAGLchPnwAqsj7QQeQPOqM2IiiYgAA/89QACWrxLAAD3xGoAAG1bHg
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 06:30:23 +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_7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B8ED5A8eusaamb103erics_"; type="multipart/alternative"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFtrJIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXRPuO7WXZdCDI5d4bd4PHcBq0XP6mZm ByaPliNvWT2WLPnJFMAUxWWTkpqTWZZapG+XwJXx6cZ2toJvb9gqXkx4zNjA+PssWxcjJ4eE gInE2cMrmSFsMYkL99YDxbk4hASOMEqcfjCfCcJZxiixYHMLO0gVm4CRxIuNPWC2iECYxMPG WWC2sICWxIJTExkh4toSH/9eZoKw3SQ2vf0Ito1FQEXiwcKDYHFeAV+JJUu2skAsWMkkcf7G FqAEBwcn0ND2n/kgNYxAF30/tQasnllAXOLWk/lMEJeKSDy8eBrqA1GJl4//sULYShJzXl9j BpnJLNDNKHFk/Vc2iGWCEidnPmGZwCgyC8msWcjqZiGpgyjKl1i39ACUrSUxr+E3E4StKDGl +yE7hK0pcWXyIShbW2LZwtfMELauxPQJR+DqZy9/xQixDBiSL09PZ50F9CizgI7EsjXqyGYu YORdxchRWpxalptuZLCJERjXxyTYdHcw7nlpeYhRgINRiYfXIOdSiBBrYllxZe4hRmkOFiVx 3kUPDoYICaQnlqRmp6YWpBbFF5XmpBYfYmTi4JRqYKxpc1wh+j1BWmLymrWNCxdeUvZPOqfY lnDcMq+p9bXXuTXv1gqcTD7b+VxRW7wlP4iptO+1t/mqgkP1++Y1HptyePo8+xPKqeFCHrs9 n7mvZtdxPXqKX9F+Sf1LFoYNRYzFD079eHLxaXfHTrml/FMPdEs9/Zd+7uDSr+ELuc+zq2r7 XlTetlOJpTgj0VCLuag4EQCJkLi6zAIAAA==
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 06:30:37 -0000

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.