Re: [Rtg-ooam-dt] [nvo3] O-bit vs. OAM as Next Protocol (Re: Consensus call on encap proposals)
Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> Tue, 09 August 2016 16:29 UTC
Return-Path: <tom@herbertland.com>
X-Original-To: rtg-ooam-dt@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-ooam-dt@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A60EE12D0BE for <rtg-ooam-dt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Aug 2016 09:29:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=herbertland-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 hzLJDU7nsBRd for <rtg-ooam-dt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Aug 2016 09:29:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x22f.google.com (mail-io0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CBA8D12D5FB for <rtg-ooam-dt@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Aug 2016 09:28:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id b62so16455285iod.3 for <rtg-ooam-dt@ietf.org>; Tue, 09 Aug 2016 09:28:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herbertland-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Hf/Fc+vAMP96y/KzosE5FoBTvHZxUUrgRIYXJWXaBSE=; b=02O1eqlMw8eR0LDZdX15jicWZVi1QtwAQ6CB+AdJPEbIntxmET7NRhzLv55ZoE/Dl3 AOKHKdOqGKTUXW1cpwo6X5yZ4bekUwK7jEOz5Hv/817JW0mZgtzmf0F1xwjFk5jsj0oa 9ZbNg+tzK3KFP9YTTUQPvEKP6HL7K9IuCBBLBD+5wIAB4WoAteGc9fhqBUWN7lD3Fet2 fAmDcbR97zbSFzzKxFimnDVTsGEdaVdjjt4BdBqVu3N5pYLxjBr/PnyUO1Zp+FnkA7i5 9QkD/frdwbhKOJdfR+18Li6UL3V1/Tzsrn/klLhofMmnK9dB9ujazYiahwNCHtsCP25i OgmQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Hf/Fc+vAMP96y/KzosE5FoBTvHZxUUrgRIYXJWXaBSE=; b=d7u2tBz+ubbqX2xiF4H/ouGaIGamMkFrRW7dEs9hTHrSgk1H108j6g3GwxDmvruDCM 09JSRZ7TL98+HkBewB8VEXnQUYR4pSTrqFjYI4nLkcOZsP67EPibv9bwmsTCOja2+qwz gQJ+Oyp56NLvKj/qWz7P6nrrXmcz5qrC2F7COpYnT8ZGiv4bjr4L+tyEkHf1s7w9TmZX VvMR3ZlmeLXhHid1ppxg5jZY+hduVI2Ji7Io1DG9/QpGyjCOrEFK98B0JFnU2kswfQ5P rmfcAfcG2aUREe7THultXzBBnkFuEcIkA0i8Dc6yt1YKI3ocMnQdQibCwoJxk+VA9aL7 M7uw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AEkoouvGLIYnU85EKZ+OnDYC6kJkGjUcVwPaMsJpvpoMlUITojGx80YL9q6X+leRbVq3UQ8Lsv9oQxjCBCzSbg==
X-Received: by 10.107.11.39 with SMTP id v39mr30985657ioi.107.1470760138880; Tue, 09 Aug 2016 09:28:58 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.21.130 with HTTP; Tue, 9 Aug 2016 09:28:58 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CA+RyBmXMQ_DWTSWcpHta34P2zMU96AzcRWUs6Pn5Vva6r9Y=Xw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+RyBmVzweMMTK3=ystVBMgWt3pxfCQ35qWgWH8ewhB=JO5nvQ@mail.gmail.com> <CALx6S35_E+hwFPYvdYWLUm2rVGKpNMObD_cPy-ooEhDoUks4hQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA+RyBmXMQ_DWTSWcpHta34P2zMU96AzcRWUs6Pn5Vva6r9Y=Xw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2016 09:28:58 -0700
Message-ID: <CALx6S34WUnTEZ8H770eFvO+5wZ9XSfNRbuSYWDBtNKOBTeKVRA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-ooam-dt/x54ijHE0me4FWx4BQf_Yvgu-YcQ>
Cc: "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" <matthew.bocci@nokia.com>, rtg-ooam-dt@ietf.org, NVO3 <nvo3@ietf.org>, Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Rtg-ooam-dt] [nvo3] O-bit vs. OAM as Next Protocol (Re: Consensus call on encap proposals)
X-BeenThere: rtg-ooam-dt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 09 Aug 2016 16:29:02 -0000
On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 <tom@herbertland.com> wrote: >> >> On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 7:02 PM, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> 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. Yes, but number of specific packets I could measure is still limited in some time quantum with the two bit method. Alternatively, if every packet contained a timestamp for instance, then we can measure every packet and filter or aggregate the measurements with arbitrary granularity of our choosing. BIER may have been defined with as a fixed length header so that a couple of bits are all that could feasibly be allocated to OAM, but this is not necessarily true for other encapsulation protocols that are purposely extensible to support a richer set of features. Tom >> >> >> Thanks, >> Tom >> >> > >> > Regards, Greg >> > >> > On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 8:13 AM, Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> 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 >> >> <matsuhira@jp.fujitsu.com> 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 >> >>> nvo3@ietf.org >> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> nvo3 mailing list >> >> nvo3@ietf.org >> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 >> >> >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > nvo3 mailing list >> > nvo3@ietf.org >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 >> > > >
- Re: [Rtg-ooam-dt] [nvo3] O-bit vs. OAM as Next Pr… Deepak Kumar (dekumar)
- Re: [Rtg-ooam-dt] [nvo3] O-bit vs. OAM as Next Pr… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [Rtg-ooam-dt] [nvo3] O-bit vs. OAM as Next Pr… Tom Herbert
- Re: [Rtg-ooam-dt] [nvo3] O-bit vs. OAM as Next Pr… Deepak Kumar (dekumar)
- Re: [Rtg-ooam-dt] [nvo3] O-bit vs. OAM as Next Pr… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [Rtg-ooam-dt] [nvo3] O-bit vs. OAM as Next Pr… Deepak Kumar (dekumar)
- Re: [Rtg-ooam-dt] [nvo3] O-bit vs. OAM as Next Pr… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [Rtg-ooam-dt] [nvo3] O-bit vs. OAM as Next Pr… Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
- Re: [Rtg-ooam-dt] [nvo3] O-bit vs. OAM as Next Pr… Tom Herbert
- Re: [Rtg-ooam-dt] [nvo3] O-bit vs. OAM as Next Pr… Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
- Re: [Rtg-ooam-dt] [nvo3] O-bit vs. OAM as Next Pr… Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
- Re: [Rtg-ooam-dt] [nvo3] O-bit vs. OAM as Next Pr… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [Rtg-ooam-dt] [nvo3] O-bit vs. OAM as Next Pr… Tom Herbert
- Re: [Rtg-ooam-dt] [nvo3] O-bit vs. OAM as Next Pr… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [Rtg-ooam-dt] [nvo3] O-bit vs. OAM as Next Pr… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [Rtg-ooam-dt] [nvo3] O-bit vs. OAM as Next Pr… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [Rtg-ooam-dt] [nvo3] O-bit vs. OAM as Next Pr… Tom Herbert
- Re: [Rtg-ooam-dt] [nvo3] O-bit vs. OAM as Next Pr… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [Rtg-ooam-dt] [nvo3] O-bit vs. OAM as Next Pr… Joe Touch
- Re: [Rtg-ooam-dt] [nvo3] O-bit vs. OAM as Next Pr… Larry Kreeger (kreeger)
- Re: [Rtg-ooam-dt] [nvo3] O-bit vs. OAM as Next Pr… Tom Herbert
- Re: [Rtg-ooam-dt] O-bit vs. OAM as Next Protocol … Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
- [Rtg-ooam-dt] O-bit vs. OAM as Next Protocol (Re:… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [Rtg-ooam-dt] [nvo3] O-bit vs. OAM as Next Pr… Shahram Davari