IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Rtg-ooam-dt] O-OAM Requirements

David Mozes <davidm@mellanox.com> Tue, 29 December 2015 08:14 UTC

Return-Path: <davidm@mellanox.com>
X-Original-To: rtg-ooam-dt@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-ooam-dt@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B9381A21B9 for <rtg-ooam-dt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Dec 2015 00:14:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.002
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 TkgnB_zv1r9Y for <rtg-ooam-dt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Dec 2015 00:14:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from emea01-am1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-am1on0645.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fe00::645]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B4E6D1A21B2 for <rtg-ooam-dt@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Dec 2015 00:14:40 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=Mellanox365.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-Mellanox-com; h=From:To:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=7CrEOnEk/f88y6EK5udQQ8gOxJQo1TZcspl5W5af+Ck=; b=okUrKkHfCzv0OflH56DjQeqLis6WKOXCFgUArHZ+AQV8ob4x1tK1UHyGUiPqcbvP82McKIUUz9jy55xPTVklSptkgbRuq1g+JrWFt3p43C3Z5k+hHmzQU56wZuIgy7OC6SYEuVEdFEPEfVklRkqS3avFOaRM9DKirSmwaTzNHGw=
Received: from VI1PR05MB1456.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.164.85.26) by VI1PR05MB1453.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.164.85.23) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.361.13; Tue, 29 Dec 2015 08:14:21 +0000
Received: from VI1PR05MB1456.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.164.85.26]) by VI1PR05MB1456.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.164.85.26]) with mapi id 15.01.0361.006; Tue, 29 Dec 2015 08:14:21 +0000
From: David Mozes <davidm@mellanox.com>
To: Gregory Mirsky <gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com>, "Nagendra Kumar Nainar (naikumar)" <naikumar@cisco.com>, "rtg-ooam-dt@ietf.org" <rtg-ooam-dt@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Rtg-ooam-dt] O-OAM Requirements
Thread-Index: AQHRPkvjJ+k9zTW3h0a6gOsGVKRsAZ7fCKVwgAKcJOA=
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 08:14:20 +0000
Message-ID: <VI1PR05MB145638029CC55E0757204178B6FC0@VI1PR05MB1456.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <D2A0E1EE.CAFD4%naikumar@cisco.com> <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF112219726E0@eusaamb103.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF112219726E0@eusaamb103.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=davidm@mellanox.com;
x-originating-ip: [193.47.165.251]
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; VI1PR05MB1453; 5:AMucYt63SIBOyn9bU9iKMrQc3gUWx3MaGBdJTy1eQ+rlQCZ8oMVl/Ue3VnrP1woAyRlAB4s7/UTzOakzGueuprjLtM6FMCmAQAGGR5nCd+JZ3smhcypEMFmPJjzMx7nQPEMz6Q3+l5/WBZ6uF6ZFXQ==; 24:kzapY8eUCyvfEmogHOI8vkyp6GDu5Jxdes4CsWD7xQGU4+d35z8GaMTDcB9Cuup/VPkCr1xXZwZxQyyKlqYtXPncZdRhXfHvdrzBlkRlk8Y=
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:VI1PR05MB1453;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <VI1PR05MB1453D8C96422D53EFD82E0C2B6FC0@VI1PR05MB1453.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(95692535739014)(37575265505322);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004)(2401047)(8121501046)(520078)(5005006)(10201501046)(3002001); SRVR:VI1PR05MB1453; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:VI1PR05MB1453;
x-forefront-prvs: 0805EC9467
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(189002)(51444003)(164054003)(377454003)(199003)(76104003)(11100500001)(50986999)(105586002)(33656002)(101416001)(19625215002)(5003600100002)(19609705001)(92566002)(86362001)(1220700001)(230783001)(2501003)(87936001)(102836003)(586003)(790700001)(5008740100001)(3846002)(1096002)(6116002)(74316001)(97736004)(19580395003)(2950100001)(76576001)(5001960100002)(2900100001)(10400500002)(189998001)(81156007)(77096005)(66066001)(5001770100001)(15975445007)(16236675004)(122556002)(106356001)(106116001)(76176999)(40100003)(54356999)(5002640100001)(5004730100002)(19300405004)(19580405001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:VI1PR05MB1453; H:VI1PR05MB1456.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: mellanox.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:23
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_VI1PR05MB145638029CC55E0757204178B6FC0VI1PR05MB1456eurp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: Mellanox.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 29 Dec 2015 08:14:21.0035 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: a652971c-7d2e-4d9b-a6a4-d149256f461b
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: VI1PR05MB1453
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-ooam-dt/LsYd9qrxLiPPmOedBmUJZK3Th5A>
Cc: "Alia Atlas \(akatlas@gmail.com\)" <akatlas@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Rtg-ooam-dt] O-OAM Requirements
X-BeenThere: rtg-ooam-dt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: List is used by the Routing Area Overlay OAM Design team for internal coordination and discussion <rtg-ooam-dt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-ooam-dt>, <mailto:rtg-ooam-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-ooam-dt/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-ooam-dt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-ooam-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-ooam-dt>, <mailto:rtg-ooam-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 08:14:47 -0000

Hi ,
I think we need
 need Route tracing

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5860#page-11

Or the similar on NVO3   proposals

Thx
David
From: Rtg-ooam-dt [mailto:rtg-ooam-dt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Gregory Mirsky
Sent: Sunday, December 27, 2015 6:35 PM
To: Nagendra Kumar Nainar (naikumar) <naikumar@cisco.com>om>; rtg-ooam-dt@ietf.org
Cc: Alia Atlas (akatlas@gmail.com) <akatlas@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Rtg-ooam-dt] O-OAM Requirements

Hi Nagendra,
thank you for your comments.
I agree with PMTUD. Though am not certain about the ECMP as far as pro-active monitoring if only tracing, i.e. on-demand. I think it would be great topic for us to discuss during the next call.
Would January 5th, 2016 @ 07:00 PST work? Would Tuesdays @ 07:00 PST work as regular meeting time?

                Regards,
                                Greg

From: Nagendra Kumar Nainar (naikumar) [mailto:naikumar@cisco.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 24, 2015 5:06 AM
To: Gregory Mirsky; rtg-ooam-dt@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-ooam-dt@ietf.org>
Cc: Alia Atlas (akatlas@gmail.com<mailto:akatlas@gmail.com>)
Subject: Re: [Rtg-ooam-dt] O-OAM Requirements

Hi Greg,

Merry Christmas and Happy New year!!

It is a good start. A couple of points that quickly popped up are below:

1. ECMP awareness - I think we should also include ECMP awareness as one of the requirement.  We may need a right terminology that depicts ECMP and is applicable on different overlay.
2. Path MTU - I see this as one of the topic coming up with different overlay. It is better to include this in the requirement.

Will read more and share any more comments.

Thanks,
Nagendra

From: Rtg-ooam-dt <rtg-ooam-dt-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-ooam-dt-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of Gregory Mirsky <gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com<mailto:gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com>>
Date: Wednesday, December 23, 2015 at 11:05 PM
To: "rtg-ooam-dt@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-ooam-dt@ietf.org>" <rtg-ooam-dt@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-ooam-dt@ietf.org>>
Cc: "Alia Atlas (akatlas@gmail.com<mailto:akatlas@gmail.com>)" <akatlas@gmail.com<mailto:akatlas@gmail.com>>
Subject: [Rtg-ooam-dt] O-OAM Requirements

Dear All,
happy holidays, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to All!

I put down some OAM requirements. Greatly appreciate your comments. Can we put it somewhere, somehow for everyone to edit?

You'll notice that some requirements are explicitly point to unidirectional character of OAM. I think that services provided y an overlay network are unidirectional and bi-directional Fault Monitoring and Performance Measurement are unnecessary. Though in some cases egress node may use IP network to send notification to the ingress node. What do you think?

                Regards,
                                Greg

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email