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

"Deepak Kumar (dekumar)" <dekumar@cisco.com> Thu, 05 February 2015 02:23 UTC

Return-Path: <dekumar@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: lime-oam-model@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lime-oam-model@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B51071A01A5 for <lime-oam-model@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 18:23:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 Up2sRbJedObP for <lime-oam-model@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 18:23:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-7.cisco.com (alln-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.142.94]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E0EFD1A019B for <lime-oam-model@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 18:23:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6984; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1423102998; x=1424312598; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=Jti2H62GoFZvFBN3DV0rOw4r/FmWi8LDxS8932dOKmQ=; b=QQl/sV1AsVBbn2GR6Ouj04yOlaf9Jmf9SE5HyMJuP3slbE/Oa3yMliHI uFdDOdzVr0K9OEwSAXSLfEhWwoxz3/FQVq23N9rNU/4Vd3oiDO+JQuBr6 lje80NFWLHEvpvjh2IHf/r0mdI8BkY+doY0ufUeZgvSGob0mbbtdgIRep 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AzBQAg09JU/4wNJK1agkFDUlkEyDUCgSRDAQEBAQF9hAwBAgQtXgEIEQMBAig5FAkIAQEEARKILdYQAQEBAQEBAQECAQEBAQEBAQEBGY9nGIQpBY8SiSmBF4MDiA+CfYM9IoNub4FEfgEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.09,521,1418083200"; d="scan'208,217";a="120682844"
Received: from alln-core-7.cisco.com ([173.36.13.140]) by alln-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 05 Feb 2015 02:23:17 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x07.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x07.cisco.com [173.37.183.81]) by alln-core-7.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t152NHTE013266 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 5 Feb 2015 02:23:17 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x11.cisco.com ([169.254.1.178]) by xhc-rcd-x07.cisco.com ([173.37.183.81]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 20:23:16 -0600
From: "Deepak Kumar (dekumar)" <dekumar@cisco.com>
To: Gregory Mirsky <gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com>, "lime-oam-model@ietf.org" <lime-oam-model@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Lime-oam-model] OAM Model analisys. First cut
Thread-Index: AdBAGLchPnwAqsj7QQeQPOqM2IiiYgAwQTcA
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 02:23:16 +0000
Message-ID: <D0F7D05C.AB71E%dekumar@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B8ECAE6@eusaamb103.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.2.130206
x-originating-ip: [10.24.111.158]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D0F7D05CAB71Edekumarciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime-oam-model/uyR9xC6PNIGeFoEvEpT3cpk0VCY>
Subject: Re: [Lime-oam-model] OAM Model analisys. First cut
X-BeenThere: lime-oam-model@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: LIME WG OAM Model Design Team <lime-oam-model.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lime-oam-model>, <mailto:lime-oam-model-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lime-oam-model/>
List-Post: <mailto:lime-oam-model@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lime-oam-model-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lime-oam-model>, <mailto:lime-oam-model-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 02:23:21 -0000

Hi Greg,

Thanks for detailed Analysis. I have few queries.
In Metrics Is Lock is covered under Defect Indication?
How's Test signal get covered?
Should we talk about Throughput or as it's application ignore for now.

Metric is covering "Source Information/MEP ID" and "MIP ID", but we should also extend to add other metrics related to Administrative Domain and MEP for completeness.
For Eg:- Administrative Domain, OAM Technology Layer Type, Level (implicit or NA), MEP addressing and ECMP (Flow Entropy or Customer traffic information).

We should also add metrics for Server Layer, Client Layer and also concept similar to Server MEP (Which is lower layer of OAM sending AIS/LCK to upper layer to suppress Alarms).
Also this concept is useful in OAM interworking between different technology also.

I believe providing information regarding server layer in data model will allow application using data model to efficiently go down one layer at a time and Isolate the Fault.

Thanks,
Deepak

From: Gregory Mirsky <gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com<mailto:gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com>>
Date: Tuesday, February 3, 2015 5:22 PM
To: "lime-oam-model@ietf.org<mailto:lime-oam-model@ietf.org>" <lime-oam-model@ietf.org<mailto:lime-oam-model@ietf.org>>
Subject: [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.

                Regards,
                                Greg