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

["Berechya, David (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)" <[e-mail]>]

Dear Michael,
Dear Hannes,

The inter carrier requirements in the draft are technology independent.
However, I doubt if we need, at this step, to add the requirement that
Maintenance Entity at each carrier should make inter-carrier service OAM
independent of transport technologies, since we have not covered the
inter technology aspects.

Best Regards,
David   

-----Original Message-----
From: ext Michael Georgiades [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 3:59 PM
To: Berechya, David (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
Cc: ext Weisgrab, Hannes [Lists]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] comments on
draft-georgiades-opsawg-intercar-oam-req-00

Dear Hannes,

The points you are raising are of interest, however they are more
related on how to monitor performance degradation for the different
transport technologies offered by a single carrier as opposed to
inter-carrier requirements which we have tried to differentiate. The
mentioned issues should also be considered when dealing with
inter-operability issues between carriers using different transport
technologies. However we avoided inter-operability or technology
oriented requirements for this draft as this should be addressed by the
SLA agreement between the carriers.

Maybe though we can add a requirement that the Maintenance Entity at
each carrier should make inter-carrier service OAM independent of
transport technologies. David?

Cheers,

Michael

On 07/04/2011 04:38 PM, Berechya, David (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon) wrote:
>   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: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
Behalf
> Of ext Weisgrab, Hannes [Lists]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 12:50 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> 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
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
> _______________________________________________
> OPSAWG mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg


--
Dr Michael Georgiades
The Maritime Center
PrimeTel PLC - www.prime-tel.com
Omonia Avenue 141, 3045 Limassol, Cyprus
Tel: [phone]  Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER
This message contains information, which may be confidential and
privileged. Unless you are the intended recipient (or authorized to
receive this message for the intended recipient), you may not use, copy,
disseminate or disclose to anyone the message or any information
contained in the message. If you have received the message in error,
please advise the sender by reply e-mail, and delete the message.
PrimeTel Plc