Re: [Time] Control Plane Functionality or Data Plane Functionality

Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> Wed, 25 June 2014 10:39 UTC

Return-Path: <bill.wu@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: time@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: time@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F30111B2B66 for <time@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Jun 2014 03:39:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.401
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.401 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 5sRIMkvvL2U0 for <time@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Jun 2014 03:39:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 31E201B2B76 for <time@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Jun 2014 03:39:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml405-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BGM12444; Wed, 25 Jun 2014 10:39:13 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from NKGEML404-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.35) by lhreml405-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.242) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Wed, 25 Jun 2014 11:39:12 +0100
Received: from NKGEML501-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.155]) by nkgeml404-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.35]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Wed, 25 Jun 2014 18:39:02 +0800
From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
To: Mishael Wexler <mishael.wexler@huawei.com>, "time@ietf.org" <time@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Control Plane Functionality or Data Plane Functionality
Thread-Index: AQHPkGGt4jMNuYSMl0q0BY9lTsPpFw==
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 10:39:01 +0000
Message-ID: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA84575CDC@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA845757FE@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com> <EEEAB624B6D2254595B53645FC8C295C06D9B4A1@szxeml561-mbx.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <EEEAB624B6D2254595B53645FC8C295C06D9B4A1@szxeml561-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.138.41.180]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA84575CDCnkgeml501mbschi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/time/3M4cVyauk5KQnKMyIB6OwzE_lSM
Subject: Re: [Time] Control Plane Functionality or Data Plane Functionality
X-BeenThere: time@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Transport Independent OAM in Multi-Layer network Entity \(TIME\) discussion list." <time.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/time>, <mailto:time-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/time/>
List-Post: <mailto:time@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:time-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/time>, <mailto:time-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 10:39:21 -0000

Thanks for response, take this to the list:
You are right, the definition of "Control Plane" may imply that
OAM tools such as ping, BFD, and others are in fact in the control
plane.

OAM tools can use control-plane functions, e.g., to initialize OAM sessions and to
exchange various parameters. I believe control plane function are referred to routing protocol like BGP or IGP protocols.
These control protocols has nothing to do with OAM protocol,
So when we say control plane functionality, so what is data plane functionality? Is BFD data plane OAM or control plane OAM?
RFC7276 did say it only focus on the data-plane functionality.

Also I believe we don’t have definition for control plane OAM if it exists, RFC7276 also doesn’t give such definition as well.

Regards!
-Qin
发件人: Mishael Wexler
发送时间: 2014年6月25日 18:22
收件人: Qin Wu
主题: RE: Control Protocol Functionality or OAM function

Hi,

Take the IP trace-route as an example.
I don’t know anyone that has implemented it in the data-plane. It always goes up the stack to the operating system / control-plane
Also, alarms and statuses that are integral part of OAM, use control-plane only ingredients.

OAM includes all parts; data, control and some management interfaces

Mishael

From: Time [mailto:time-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Qin Wu
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 12:07 PM
To: time@ietf.org<mailto:time@ietf.org>
Subject: [Time] Control Protocol Functionality or OAM function

Hi,:
Sometimes I am confused when we talk about Control Protocol Functionality in the data plane OAM.
Do we have control plane OAM protocol, Can BFD, LSP Ping, ICMP be viewed as control plane OAM?

It looks to me there is no control plane OAM protocol such thing, although BFD defines control packet,
I think it is still a data plane OAM protocol.

The control protocol functionality in the data plane OAM is, in my opinion,
referred to various OAM functions(e.g.,Ping, Traceroute) implemented by OAM protocols.
OAM tools can use control-plane functions in the control plane, e.g., to initialize OAM sessions and to
exchange various parameters.  But such control plane functions are not strictly OAM related.

But we do need to distinct OAM protocol like BFD from OAM information being put into data packet header or data packet payload?
Can the latter be regarded as OAM protocol as well or data plane OAM protocol? Do we need to define the new term “control plane OAM”
Is there anybody like to clarify this?

Regards!
-Qin