IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [spring] Requirements towards OAM in Segment Routing network

"Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com> Wed, 17 May 2017 15:24 UTC

Return-Path: <cpignata@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FDAC1286AB; Wed, 17 May 2017 08:24:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.522
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.522 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 5FMzedz63rpD; Wed, 17 May 2017 08:24:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D61E5128CDC; Wed, 17 May 2017 08:18:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4350; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1495034308; x=1496243908; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=L8Z+zHpFbjAF9MgWBU4qBWvkyNKoqc8GIId2lhytftM=; b=It2SRF1zCZ/9LdOMMhqESQiEuMZ1E+RDSkROpOGYjpiJzK36QPmsik6l rdQ+7SM5aYA6GoZQb9UsRRkglW18NpIsrBNfU50AOU/cmaHEEZdmJ3bxt Dg2CI+YhvovPZhG+pbsJHy3ZfORNYmjrE3s/JJk+HBlXENiGG137toyVE U=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CWAQBFaRxZ/4kNJK1cGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBBwEBAQEBg1VigQwHg2aKGJFFiEeIF4U4gg8hAQqFLkoCGoVBPxgBAgEBAQEBAQFrKIUZAgEDAQEhSwsQAgEIBDsDAgICHwYLFBECBA4FG4lwAxUOrHKCJocxDYNHAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBGAWGX4FdLAuCZYJUhSEvgjEFhxGWRDsBhxuGYUuEU5Ftiy+JFgEfOD9LcBVGEgGGY3aHW4ENAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.38,354,1491264000"; d="scan'208,217";a="244692003"
Received: from alln-core-4.cisco.com ([173.36.13.137]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 17 May 2017 15:18:27 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-017.cisco.com (xch-rtp-017.cisco.com [64.101.220.157]) by alln-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v4HFIR8B018433 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 17 May 2017 15:18:27 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-020.cisco.com (64.101.220.160) by XCH-RTP-017.cisco.com (64.101.220.157) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Wed, 17 May 2017 11:18:27 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-020.cisco.com ([64.101.220.160]) by XCH-RTP-020.cisco.com ([64.101.220.160]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Wed, 17 May 2017 11:18:26 -0400
From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>
To: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
CC: "draft-bardhan-spring-poi-sr-oam@ietf.org" <draft-bardhan-spring-poi-sr-oam@ietf.org>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [spring] Requirements towards OAM in Segment Routing network
Thread-Index: AQHSzh2hYuTATHtv/ESR42cBtB5wGqH46HwA
Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 15:18:26 +0000
Message-ID: <085486A4-470F-4769-A22D-D8785E345F51@cisco.com>
References: <CA+RyBmVhQPczkNPM3e0pV7XYWb_KZwV+5VebYxefVS3T5K3NWg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+RyBmVhQPczkNPM3e0pV7XYWb_KZwV+5VebYxefVS3T5K3NWg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.150.72.101]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_085486A4470F4769A22DD8785E345F51ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/bHOQFQCKSYOxjxk6K9o1Nd28K10>
Subject: Re: [spring] Requirements towards OAM in Segment Routing network
X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." <spring.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spring/>
List-Post: <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 15:24:17 -0000

Hi,

I do not believe SPRING should work on draft-ietf-spring-sr-oam-requirement. It makes more sense to focus on solutions than these weak and sparse requirements for very diverse set of potential protocols (LSP Ping, BFD, S-BFD, SRv6 OAMs, etc).

Thanks,

— Carlos.

On May 16, 2017, at 4:18 AM, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com<mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>> wrote:

Dear Authors,
I'd like to bring your attention to the WG document OAM Requirements for Segment Routing Network<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-sr-oam-requirement-03>. I think that many requirements listed in your document are common requirements for OAM in Segment Routing network listed in the above mentioned document.

Kind regards,
Greg
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email