Re: [OPSAWG] comments on draft-georgiades-opsawg-intercar-oam-req-00

 Dear Hannes,

Regarding service aspects in OAM: there are OAM in the service level
that monitors the service end-to-end, and OAM in the network level that
monitors the paths that carry many services.

Regarding the scope of the draft: the draft focuses in the special
requirements that the multi carrier scenario raises, e.g.  Reliable
means to the network service providers to prove, in case of failure,
which is the failing transit segment.

Best Regards,
David Berechya

-----Original Message-----
From: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:opsawg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of ext Weisgrab, Hannes [Lists]
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 12:50 AM
To: opsawg@ietf.org
Subject: [OPSAWG] comments on
draft-georgiades-opsawg-intercar-oam-req-00

Dear list members,

as this is the first time I post to this list I'd like to briefly
introduce myself.
I'm researcher at the Telecommunications Research Center Vienna (FTW;
http://www.ftw.at) and I'm involved in the EU FP7 project ETICS
(http://www.ict-etics.eu/). In this project we investigate - among other
things - how QoS can be enabled across domains utilizing different
transport technologies (above all: connection oriented AND connection
less technologies). In this respect we also deal with network monitoring
and SLA assurance (the latter of which is the final goal).

My core concern is that I think it could be beneficial if an
inter-carrier OAM system would be aware of the (network transport)
services and the way how they are transported at a given interconnection
point. I further assume that such an interconnection point (link) would
also make a perfect monitoring point.
But how to identify the various (network transport) services and the way
they are transported via this point?

Let me explain this in more detail:
If two or more providers want to offer a QoS-enabled (network transport)
service they also need to agree on a mechanism to transport this service
through their networks. There are various mechanisms which could be used
like utilizing the DSCP field of the IP-header (*) or using tunneling
(e.g. IP-in-IP [RFC2003], GRE [RFC2784], or even other mechanisms, which
are proprietary or not yet standardized).
However, if such mechanisms are applied between domains, this
information needs to be transferred also to the monitoring device, which
could be external to the router (which would be beneficial both in terms
of trust and router (CPU) utilization).
Without information about the transported services and the exact way
they are transported, the monitoring capability would be reduced to
simple link monitoring, which would be of much less benefit for the
operator.

I'm not so familiar with the OAM topic and if there are already
discussions in this direction, so I was wondering, if this topic has
already been addressed or if this could possibly be another requirement?

Looking forward to your comments, br,
Hannes Weisgrab.

(*) various RFCs are related to this, like:
RFC791 ;-)  , RFC2474, RFC2983 ,RFC4594, ...
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg