Re: [PMOL] Draft Agenda for PMOL at IETF-70

Lars-san, Dan-san,
Thank you very much for the help to find suitable place.

I think our approach is very different from IPPMs'.
Our intention is to maintain all of tunnel flows in operation
to check continuously the SLAs of the flows.

The measurment method should be very light-weight and scalable.
This is the top priority to deploy.
The metrics depend on less resource situation.
It is not much argurable how the metrics should be.

Also, the method must be passive.
IPPM seems not to deal with passive measurement.

In addition, we already asked the IPPM mailing list about the draft,
according to a suggestion from Dan in 68th Czech IETF,
and we got a following answer from the IPPM chairs after 69th IETF.
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ippm/current/msg01196.html

-- still in a floating boat (*_*), Yu.

> 
> 
> I would agree that IPPM may be a better place to discuss this draft, as
> IPPM metrics apply to a large extend already to what is being proposed.
> The question of using IPPM metrics at the ends of the tunnel was already
> raised I believe in the OPSAWG when this was presented first. 
> 
> Dan
> 
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Lars Eggert [mailto:lars.eggert@nokia.com] 
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 11:39 AM
> > To: ext KIKUCHI Yutaka
> > Cc: zin@jaist.ac.jp; ogashiwa@noware.co.jp; 
> > rbonica@juniper.net; satoru@ft.solteria.net; pmol@ietf.org; 
> > nagami@inetcore.com
> > Subject: Re: [PMOL] Draft Agenda for PMOL at IETF-70
> > 
> > On 2007-11-20, at 22:26, ext KIKUCHI Yutaka wrote:
> > > May I have a slot to discuss an I-D for tunnel measurement?
> > >
> > > 4. One-way Passive Measurement of End-to-End Quality (Yutaka) 
> > > 
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kikuchi-passive-measure-01.t
> > > xt
> > >
> > > I had presented the -00 version in OPSAWG at the last IETF, 
> > but it is 
> > > more adapted to discuss in PMOL than in OPSAWG.
> > 
> > Given that tunnels can be a part of an IP path, I'd think 
> > that this draft would be in scope of IPPM, rather than PMOL 
> > or OPSAWG. Even more so, because some of the metrics you 
> > define for a tunnel seem to overlap with metrics IPPM has 
> > already defined for IP paths.
> > 
> > Lars
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > PMOL mailing list
> > PMOL@ietf.org
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol
> > 
> 

_______________________________________________
PMOL mailing list
PMOL@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol