[oam] Fwd: IAB/IESG Joint Design Session on Forwarding Plane Operations, Administration and Maintenance
Stan Ratliff <sratliff@cisco.com> Mon, 23 August 2010 14:22 UTC
Return-Path: <sratliff@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: oam@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oam@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFDE93A69FA for <oam@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 07:22:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.394
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.394 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.204, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cOAXuLHwH7Li for <oam@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 07:22:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com (rtp-iport-2.cisco.com [64.102.122.149]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A4303A69D8 for <oam@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 07:22:26 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: rtp-iport-2.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjgFAKogckxAZnwN/2dsb2JhbACBQ55rcZ8cm0OFNwSCW4cb
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.56,257,1280707200"; d="scan'208,217"; a="150881552"
Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com ([64.102.124.13]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 23 Aug 2010 14:22:59 +0000
Received: from dhcp-64-102-54-112.cisco.com (dhcp-64-102-54-112.cisco.com [64.102.54.112]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o7NEMxPc001397 for <oam@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 14:22:59 GMT
Message-Id: <32242504-193D-4D4C-966A-80FC4140F3F6@cisco.com>
From: Stan Ratliff <sratliff@cisco.com>
To: oam@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-56--676497026"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936)
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 10:23:00 -0400
References: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456B00B281B2E@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936)
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 07:33:19 -0700
Subject: [oam] Fwd: IAB/IESG Joint Design Session on Forwarding Plane Operations, Administration and Maintenance
X-BeenThere: oam@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <oam.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oam>, <mailto:oam-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oam>
List-Post: <mailto:oam@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:oam-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oam>, <mailto:oam-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 14:22:29 -0000
Re-directing to oam@ietf.org as requested. Regards, Stan Begin forwarded message: > From: Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> > Date: August 22, 2010 7:10:01 PM EDT > To: Stan Ratliff <sratliff@cisco.com> > Subject: RE: IAB/IESG Joint Design Session on Forwarding Plane > Operations, Administration and Maintenance > > Stan, > > You might want to bring this discussion to OAM@IETF.org. > > Ron > > > From: Stan Ratliff [mailto:sratliff@cisco.com] > Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 2:32 PM > To: Fred Baker > Cc: Ron Bonica; Danny McPherson; Hannes Tschofenig; Stewart Bryant; > Stan Ratliff > Subject: Re: IAB/IESG Joint Design Session on Forwarding Plane > Operations, Administration and Maintenance > > All, > > We have a draft that we've submitted to the MANET working group. > It's at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sratliff-dlep/. The > Data LInk Exchange Protocol (DLEP) was originally intended for > routers and radios to communicate in wireless networks, allowing > modem devices to generate events when a potential routing neighbor > is either found or is lost. > > That being said, a switch-based DLEP implementation could, as Fred > describes below, send messages to other devices in cases where > electrical connectivity is lost to some device, or a new device is > introduced - essentially, performing the same functionality as BFD, > but without the background ping traffic. > > Regards, > Stan > > > On Aug 22, 2010, at 8:11 AM, Fred Baker wrote: > > > Question > > > The scope of this design session is limited to the forwarding plane. > Proposals concerning control and management plane protocols will not > be accepted. For example, a proposal that probes a tunnel for > continuity would be acceptable, while a proposal for reporting > tunnel continuity to a routing protocol or management station would > be productive, but beyond the scope of this workshop. > > A tool that performs a keep-alive or make-dead function on a tunnel- > or-whatever seems marginally functional without the ability to > report its results to SOMETHING. I worry that you may find that this > constraint declares out-of-scope most useful tools. > > What we know how to do, and have done in the forwarding plane, is > ICMP. I would argue that BFD is largely an extension to ICMP in > concept, although it is implemented in UDP. It does the same > functions - it sends keep-alive messages in the form of pings to a > peer and observes the response. From my perspective, either we > continue with the "you can't talk with the network, only over it" > paradigm, or we look at a paradigm in which the network can itself > respond to questions. I think the latter is required if we want to > do anything that is recursive. > > An example of a paradigm in which the network might respond to > questions asks a lower-layer device, such as a switch, to advise an > upper-lawer device, such as a host or router attached to the switch, > for a specified indication of a specific kind of failure. For > example, the router could advise the switch that it is interested in > a given MAC address, one that perhaps happens to be in use by a peer > router, and ask the switch to advise it if the switch loses > connectivity to that MAC address. The switch would (somehow) put a > watch on the port the MAC address is associated with, and if > electrical connectivity is lost send a specified message to the > router within some stated interval. Such electrical loss would > protect against a hardware failure at the switch or in a connecting > cable without routers needing to poll each other at all. It would > not protect against forwarding plane failure in a peer, however; > other kinds of failures would still be primarily detected at the > same plane. There are obvious extensions for various inter-tube > technologies, including the notion of layering them on lower layer > networks or relaying such requests to peer - if the switch in the > example is connected to the MAC address via another switch, it could > ask the neighboring switch for such a message and remember to > forward it to the original requestor should it get one. > > I am copying Stan here because he made a related suggestion to me > last week. I have suggested to him that he propose it. > > I will not be in a position to attend the workshop for various > reasons, but might be interested to submit an internet draft to it. > Is something similar to the above of interest? > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: IAB/IESG Joint Design Session on Forwarding Plane > Operations, Administration and Maintenance > Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 11:36:30 -0700 (PDT) > From: IESG Secretary <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> > To: IETF Announcement list <ietf-announce@ietf.org> > > > The IAB and IESG would like to announce a joint design session on > Forwarding Plane Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) to > be > held on October 12 through October 14 at George Mason University in > Fairfax, Virginia, USA. > > IP and ICMP support very simple forwarding plane diagnostic tools > (e.g., > PING, TRACEROUTE). During the Internet's first decades, these tools > fulfilled most operational requirements. However, during the last > decade, > network operators have deployed many technologies that rely upon > tunneling. These technologies include Pseudo-wires, Layer 2 Virtual > Private Networks, and Layer 3 Virtual Private Networks. While the > internet > community has enhanced its forwarding plane diagnostic tool kit with > the > deployment of Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD), some suggest > that > the tool kit is still inadequate for tunneled applications. > > The purpose of this design session is to discover and document > operational requirements and constraints for tunneled forwarding plane > OAM. The design session will also entertain solution proposals. > While most > activity in this area has been associated with Multi-Protocol Label > Switching (MPLS), session organizers also encourage generic > proposals that > include other tunneling mechanisms (e.g., IP-in-IP). > > The scope of this design session is limited to the forwarding plane. > Proposals concerning control and management plane protocols will not > be > accepted. For example, a proposal that probes a tunnel for continuity > would be acceptable, while a proposal for reporting tunnel > continuity to a > routing protocol or management station would be productive, but > beyond the > scope of this workshop. > > Those intending to make presentations must submit position papers to > the > IAB/IESG by September 24. Position papers should constitute one to > five > pages on the problem or solution space, with a particular emphasis on > areas that the IETF should address or revisit. Evaluation of the > position > papers will be performed by a committee consisting of IESG and IAB > members. A limited number of seats will be available for persons not > presenting. > > Position papers will be made publicly available. On the basis of the > position papers, a number of invited speakers will be asked to > present at > the workshop. A final agenda with timeslots will be published by > October > 1. > > > Further information about position paper submission procedures are > forthcoming. Interested parties are advised to subscribe to the oam at > > ietf.org > mailing list for discussion and announcements related to the > workshop. Additional information will be available at > > http://www3.tools.ietf.org/area/ops/trac/wiki/oamJDS > . > > Ron Bonica, IESG > Danny McPherson, IAB > Hannes Tschofenig, IAB > _______________________________________________ > IETF-Announce mailing list > > IETF-Announce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce > >
- [oam] Fwd: IAB/IESG Joint Design Session on Forwa… Stan Ratliff
- Re: [oam] IAB/IESG Joint Design Session on Forwar… Ronald Bonica
- [oam] IAB/IESG Joint Design Session on Forwarding… Ronald Bonica
- Re: [oam] IAB/IESG Joint Design Session on Forwar… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [oam] IAB/IESG Joint Design Session on Forwar… Ronald Bonica
- Re: [oam] [mpls-tp] IAB/IESG Joint Design Session… Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: [oam] [mpls-tp] IAB/IESG Joint Design Session… Ronald Bonica
- Re: [oam] [mpls-tp] IAB/IESG Joint Design Session… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [oam] [mpls-tp] IAB/IESG Joint Design Session… Robert Rennison
- Re: [oam] [mpls-tp] IAB/IESG Joint Design Session… Robert Rennison
- Re: [oam] [mpls-tp] IAB/IESG Joint Design Session… David Harrington