[mpls] OAM thoughts for draft-farrel-mpls-sfc
"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Tue, 06 March 2018 19:10 UTC
Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D091C124234 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Mar 2018 11:10:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 e4yOTYJ-PM9p for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Mar 2018 11:10:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mta5.iomartmail.com (mta5.iomartmail.com [62.128.193.155]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B104012D7E8 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Mar 2018 11:10:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vs2.iomartmail.com (vs2.iomartmail.com [10.12.10.123]) by mta5.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id w26JAncT018730 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Mar 2018 19:10:49 GMT
Received: from vs2.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69D5222044 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Mar 2018 19:10:48 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (unknown [10.12.10.248]) by vs2.iomartmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5483222042 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Mar 2018 19:10:48 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from 950129200 ([193.56.242.70]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id w26JAk82003956 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <mpls@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Mar 2018 19:10:47 GMT
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: mpls@ietf.org
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2018 19:10:47 -0000
Message-ID: <04b001d3b57e$d5f05300$81d0f900$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Content-Language: en-gb
Thread-Index: AdO1fM/uroepTcPKTpuO2J8sjTjcwg==
X-Originating-IP: 193.56.242.70
X-Thinkmail-Auth: adrian@olddog.co.uk
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.0.1013-23704.002
X-TM-AS-Result: No--1.687-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--1.687-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Version: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.1013-23704.002
X-TMASE-Result: 10--1.687100-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: fnyFuCT6NqnRhEyb9f1sjvHkpkyUphL921vbWXUnSNxaW2Ktn+I8/p2E 2ZaOGRorT+8v17QjdI24EINY23TnQe2k/tczsflXW7gz/Gbgpl7vJY9pBzgg1EX5hc8ioB2+eu3 wMYtoHVE6Ci/NTsYIUlZMq0kzAZnwnJra0Su7THtb+El1PZzoVsMdI0UcXEHzS7hnXTvJdZh07+ 2QNMSDJO4EUDaBia6sjW1i3A++Mdk17J5eRd7pWeIfK/Jd5eHmfS0Ip2eEHny+qryzYw2E8H2PY bDNMTe9KrauXd3MZDVIBZkBx6KdZtRgvcibZhiuPGyQvN4pIkEgdfVUp76W9OKo+KkYu4H5UUGq 8MFnQcHX8pL0X8B/O6jgLP+pdRSPeQd9IaF7oSgeWO4l4uvz7q9yxO5R6ODSiZDa+q6bAAVVQfz m8hzCuXYD/c2Xg/yR
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/b9Duw-9ShdCrIRyis3TOJWw-_pw>
Subject: [mpls] OAM thoughts for draft-farrel-mpls-sfc
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mpls/>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2018 19:10:55 -0000
Hi, An offline MPLS-RT review asked... > One thing I missed in the doc is the OAM considerations and operational > aspects. > Is there a separate doc, describing those aspects? If so, please add > reference. If not, I would like to see those details, within or outside > of this doc. Obviously (?) OAM for MPLS-SFC is critically important. But we don't want to get ahead of the NSH work being done in the SFC working group. Ideally we would model that work, however, the SFC WG has a way to go before concluding an OAM approach. What I would offer at this stage is that the MPLS forwarding plane already has a number of OAM techniques and tools. Furthermore, the metadata approach described in this document allows OAM packets to be sent along the path of the SFP interspersed with data packets. (See also draft-farrel-sfc-convent) Adrian -- Support an author and your imagination Tales from the Wood - Eighteen new fairy tales More Tales from the Wood - Eighteen MORE new fairy tales Tales from Beyond the Wood - A bumper collection of twenty-two new tales https://www.feedaread.com/profiles/8604/ http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tales-Wood-Adrian-Farrel/dp/1786100924 Or buy from me direct
- [mpls] OAM thoughts for draft-farrel-mpls-sfc Adrian Farrel