IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Nagendra Kumar Nainar (naikumar)" <naikumar@cisco.com> Thu, 24 December 2015 05:03 UTC

Return-Path: <naikumar@cisco.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 33CDF1A8F42 for <rtg-ooam-dt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 21:03:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 AHg-1N4PA9NU for <rtg-ooam-dt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 21:03:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 320F91A8F40 for <rtg-ooam-dt@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 21:03:21 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5671; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1450933401; x=1452143001; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=/+qnvYBqvdtlyMABtsh/S7ex8GVUiweJ5iSDy1R0Gbo=; b=hEY9mA5mFLWak99RMYW1lxcMkanLg9cdvdJOq4KlsTbh3ApQa1LuY6TX F29NuFYfNvT2kffKGcBSOjeSBeF3LNxW/p1I8r+mBFJTYxWahjKy7Rr35 mr4TChiDXDG4tzQTy9H7c1zETbmjHjHVQINRozUmfSIidOBnJYpCI9VES A=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0DwFQBme3tW/5RdJa1egm5MgT8GhXuCW?= =?us-ascii?q?KY4AQQBjj0BDYFkhg8CgSA4FAEBAQEBAQGBCoQ0AQEBBHkQAgEIEQQBAQolDxI?= =?us-ascii?q?RHQgBAQQBDQWIGgMSvG4Ng3UBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEYi1WCT4ZuA?= =?us-ascii?q?QSLOII5iRMBixJDgXiBXBaHVoUxhmGDZoNzASABAUKEC3KEIIEIAQEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.20,472,1444694400"; d="scan'208,217"; a="61946620"
Received: from rcdn-core-12.cisco.com ([173.37.93.148]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 24 Dec 2015 05:03:20 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-011.cisco.com (xch-aln-011.cisco.com [173.36.7.21]) by rcdn-core-12.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id tBO51np0010873 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 24 Dec 2015 05:01:49 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-015.cisco.com (173.37.102.25) by XCH-ALN-011.cisco.com (173.36.7.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 23:01:48 -0600
Received: from xch-rcd-015.cisco.com ([173.37.102.25]) by XCH-RCD-015.cisco.com ([173.37.102.25]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 23:01:48 -0600
From: "Nagendra Kumar Nainar (naikumar)" <naikumar@cisco.com>
To: Gregory Mirsky <gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com>, "rtg-ooam-dt@ietf.org" <rtg-ooam-dt@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: O-OAM Requirements
Thread-Index: AdE9/wBFKKAC1T+hSLCARUbLOu0FNQACSfxi
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2015 05:01:48 +0000
Message-ID: <1450933308451.46674@cisco.com>
References: <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF112219715D5@eusaamb103.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF112219715D5@eusaamb103.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.82.233.129]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_145093330845146674ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-ooam-dt/v0B9z_KJN5cRiqRCv7EiU2fjI8U>
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: Thu, 24 Dec 2015 05:03:23 -0000

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> on behalf of Gregory Mirsky <gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2015 11:05 PM
To: rtg-ooam-dt@ietf.org
Cc: Alia Atlas (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