Re: [Rtg-ooam-dt] [nvo3] O-bit vs. OAM as Next Protocol (Re: Consensus call on encap proposals)

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tom,
many thanks for the most informative response. I've added mu notes in-line
under tag GIM>>.

Regards, Greg

On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 5:44 PM, Tom Herbert <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 7:02 PM, Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Dear Authors of the VxLAN-GPE, GUE, and GENEVE,
> > all protocols under consideration use a bit flag rather than explicit
> > protocol type to indicate that payload is a test packet, i.e. active OAM.
> > I'm trying to understand the rationale of such decision. Does use of the
> bit
> > flag rather than protocol type produce more efficient implementation, is
> > more HW friendly? In GUE, the the field to indicate type of the payload
> even
> > tagged Proto/ctype as its interpretation depends upon value of the C bit.
>
> The C-bit in GUE distinguishes data messages from control
> messages.Data messages are considered to be the payload of
> encapsulation, whereas control messages are about the encapsulation
> itself. OAM might be one type of control message in GUE, however there
> could be others. For instance if we wanted some sort of negotiation
> between two endpoints to exchange capabilities or supported features
> this would fit well into a control message.
>
GIM>> Yes, what I've proposed is clearly more than just OAM channel. In
fact, it is Associated Channel (ACh) that may be used by control,
management and OAM. And as I've used term "Associated Channel" you'll
easily recognize that I have MPLS background and draw on MPLS/MPLS-TP OAM
experience. And as Generic ACh (G-ACh) is used to advertise capabilities of
an LSR in RFC 7212, AC-h in NVO3 can support similar functionalities as
well.

>
> > But wouldn't it be simpler if all proposals used protocol type to
> identify
> > OAM payload? And if the protocol type is OAM, then after the protocol
> header
> > have OOAM Header, e.g. as proposed in . Then
>
> Each of the three protocols has a protocol next header field, however
> the field is defined differently among them. The next header in GUE is
> an IP protocol number, in Geneve it is an Ethertype, and VXLAN-GPE
> uses a new number space. In GUE we could probably use ICMP protocol
> for OAM by defining the appropriate types (that might have the
> advantage of allow OAM to be generic instead of restricted to only
> encapsulation). Presumably, VXLAN-GPE could define some value in the
> number space for for OAM. For Geneve maybe there is an appropriate
> Ethertype?
>
> > NVO3 protocols would be able to have common Active OAM (Fault Management
> and
> > Performance Measurement) that can be used in BIER and SFC. And the bit,
> the
> > bit I'd propose to redefine to be used for passive performance
> measurement
> > as described in draft-ietf-bier-pmmm-oam. (Allocating two bits-long field
> > would enable more accurate measurements using the Alternate Marking
> method).
> > And these steps will enable us to develop common Active OAM and use
> passive
> > performance measurement regardless, almost, of the data plane protocol
> used
> > in NVO layer.
>
> The problem I see with trying to constrain the solution to only one or
> two bits of information is that this substantially limits the
> functionality. With an extensible protocol we should be able more
> information to get more accurate measurement. For instance, I might
> want to measure the latency of individual packets to get feedback on
> path selection, correlate performance to packet loss, etc. Has the OAM
> DT considered the requirements and solutions for passive performance
> measurement?
>
GIM>> Indeed, the OAM DT had considered the requirements to enable use of
performance measurement methods as passive OAM. Should note that we use
term "passive method" somewhat differently from the definition in RFC 7799.
Such interpretation was discussed in the IPPM WG and we've agreed that if a
measurement method does not change treatment of a data packet by the
network (e.g. doesn't change its CoS, length or else), then the method
behaves as close as passive and may be characterized as such. Measurements
for a single packet are possible using the Alternate Marking method with
two bits-long marker. The draft in BIER WG has such example. I've attached
the presentation slides. Will be glad to answer any further questions.

>
> Thanks,
> Tom
>
> >
> > Regards, Greg
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 8:13 AM, Alia Atlas <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>
> >> I'd like to have people focus on the key point of this thread.
> >>
> >> Are there serious technical objections (and specifically what are they)
> to
> >> moving forward with VXLAN-GPE as the standards-track protocol?
> >>
> >> Are there serious technical objections (and specifically what are they)
> to
> >> moving forward with GENEVE as the standards-track protocol?
> >>
> >> Are there serious technical objections (and specifically what are they)
> to
> >> moving forward with GUE as the standards-track protocol?
> >>
> >> We need to capture any relevant objections.  So far, there's been some
> >> discussion on extensibility - with Tom Herbert providing concrete
> concerns.
> >>
> >> I have concluded that almost all the authors would prefer to have no
> >> standards track solution if they can't guarantee that theirs is that
> >> standard.
> >>
> >> I do hear concerns about whether a decision will be too late.   I think
> >> that a decision can only be helpful.   It goes back to when is the best
> time
> >> to plant a tree - with the answer of 20 years ago or now.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Alia
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 4:34 AM, Naoki Matsuhira
> >> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 2016/07/21 23:56, Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> WG
> >>>>
> >>>> There was a discussion in the NVO3 WG meeting in Berlin following
> strong
> >>>> advice from our Area Director that we need to come to a consensus on
> >>>> converging on a common encapsulation. Two sets of questions were
> asked:
> >>>> (1) Should the WG move forward with one standards track encap?
> >>>> (2) For a given encap, do you have significant technical objections?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I want to inform to this mailing list that I proposed ME6E-FP and
> ME6E-PR
> >>> at the yokohama meeting. I also have proposal M46E-FP and M46E-PR (past
> >>> called SA46T).
> >>>
> >>> These encapsulation technologies are based on address mapping. ME6E use
> >>> IPv6 address which mapping MAC address, and M46E use IPv6 address which
> >>> mapping IPv4 address.
> >>>
> >>> I understand too many encapsulation technologies, however these my
> >>> proposal are simple, and may contribute to the Internet.
> >>>
> >>> I believe address mapping approach is unique, so I want to propose
> again.
> >>>
> >>> sorry not the answer to the question.
> >>>
> >>> Naoki Matsuhira
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> nvo3 mailing list
> >>> [e-mail]
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> nvo3 mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > nvo3 mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
> >
>