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

[Mach Chen <[e-mail]>]

Hi  Greg and David,

Indeed, I agree with you that the route tracing is needed  and should be included.

For NVO3, I also think that there seems no MIPs and thus the route tracing may not be applicable.

Best regards,
Mach

Happy New Year to ALL!



From: Rtg-ooam-dt [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Gregory Mirsky
Sent: Thursday, December 31, 2015 5:41 AM
To: David Mozes; Nagendra Kumar Nainar (naikumar); [e-mail]
Cc: Alia Atlas ([e-mail])
Subject: Re: [Rtg-ooam-dt] O-OAM Requirements

Hi David,
agree, ability to trace a path is one of the most valuable troubleshooting mechanisms. I'll make it clear in the draft.
One question regarding NVO3 environment. For example, BIER architecture is not only allows but requires that transient nodes, Bit-Forwarding Routers, used in BIER domain between Bit-Forwarding Ingress Router (BFIR) and Bit-Forwarding Egress Router (BFER). What may be viewed as transient virtual node in NVO3 reference model? If NVO3 OAM domain among NVEs, then, if I use terminology of connection-oriented networks OAM, where our MIPs to trace? I think I can see only MEPs at NVEs. Greatly appreciate you comments.

Happy New Year to All!

                Regards,
                                Greg

From: David Mozes [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2015 12:14 AM
To: Gregory Mirsky; Nagendra Kumar Nainar (naikumar); [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: Alia Atlas ([e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>)
Subject: RE: [Rtg-ooam-dt] O-OAM Requirements

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:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Gregory Mirsky
Sent: Sunday, December 27, 2015 6:35 PM
To: Nagendra Kumar Nainar (naikumar) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: Alia Atlas ([e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
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:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, December 24, 2015 5:06 AM
To: Gregory Mirsky; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: Alia Atlas ([e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>)
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 <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of Gregory Mirsky <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Wednesday, December 23, 2015 at 11:05 PM
To: "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: "Alia Atlas ([e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
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