Re: [Time] Strong Technology Dependency

[Huub van Helvoort <[e-mail]>]

Hello Qin,

Indeed ITU-T worked together with IEEE on the CFM concept.
ITU-T has added/developed OAM tools for performance monitoring.
G.8013 (Ethernet OAM) and G.8113.1 (MPLS-TP OAM) are aligned.

Bets regards, Huub.

Hi, Hubb:

Thanks for your clarification.

That is to say, In IETF MPLS-TP OAM tools, we can use BFD to provide CC and CV(See RFC6428) and use LSP ping to provide CV (See RFC6426).

ITU-T MPLS-TP adopt IEEE802.1ag CFM conception and integrate Ethernet OAM tools, then within MPLS-TP, we can use CFM OAM tool to provide CC and CV.

 

Regards!

-Qin

发件人: Time [mailto:[e-mail]] 代 表 Huub van Helvoort
发 送时间: 2014年6月30日 20:40
收件人: [e-mail]
主题: Re: [Time] Strong Technology Dependency

 

Qin, 您好，

You wondered:

 [Qin]: Besides using BFD, is there any other way to provide CC or CV?

Yes. Please read ITU-T recommendation G.8113.1 (MPLS-TP
OAM tools based on G.8013/Y.1731).
It describes the CCM OAM tool that provides CC and CV, it is in fact
the Ethernet CCM with an MPLS-TP header.

(G.8113.2 describes MPLS-TP OAM tools based on BFD and LSP-ping).

Best regards, Huub.

 发件人: OPSAWG [mailto:[e-mail]] 代表 Qin Wu
发送时间: 2014年6月25日 16:06
收件人: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
抄送: [e-mail]
主题: [OPSAWG] Strong Technology Dependency

 

Hi, Mohamed:

Thanks for details review to problem statement draft

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ww-opsawg-multi-layer-oam-00" rel="nofollow">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ww-opsawg-multi-layer-oam-00

and update I sent to you.

 

Regarding strong technology dependency issue,

Section 4.2 gives an address scheme  example to explain why the existing OAM mechanism has strong

Technology as follows:

“

Addressing scheme is a good example for an issue

that has a high price for being non-generic.  Ping of IPv4 and IPv6

looks different in the addressing scheme as well in the ICMP

indication field, but they have the same OAM functionalities.

”

You asked to clarify the exact point of this paragraph.

I think what this paragraph said is

For IP ping, IPv4 Ping protocol [RFC792] and IPv6 ping protocol [RFC4443] use different IP technology but share the same OAM function.

 

But I agree with you address scheme is not a typical example for strong technology dependency.

I think the typical example is ICMP, LSP Ping and MPLS-TP OAM are using different network technology but share the same OAM

functionality, i.e., Path Discovery.  Another example is ICMP,BFD,LSP Ping and MPLS-TP OAM are using different network technology but share

the same functionality, i.e., continuity check.  

 

The following figure shows common OAM functionalities shared by various existing OAM protocols.

   |--------+-----------+--------------+--------------+------------+

   |        |Continuity |  Connectivity|    Path      | Performance|

   |        |  Check    |  Verification|  Discovery   | Monitoring |

   +--------+-----------+--------------+--------------+------------+

   |        |           |              |              |            |

   | ICMP   |           |   Echo(Ping) |  Traceroute  |            |

   |        |           |              |              |            |

   +--------+-----------+--------------+--------------+------------+

   |        |           |              |              |            |

   | BFD    |  BFD      |   BFD Echo   |              |            |

   |        | Control   |              |              |            |

   +--------+-----------+--------------+--------------+------------+

   | LSP    |           |              |              | - Delay    |

   | Ping   |           |   Ping       |  Traceroute  | - Packet   |

   |        |           |              |              |    Loss    |

   +--------+-----------+--------------+--------------+------------+

   |        |           |              |              |            |

   | IPPM   |           |              |              |            |

   |        |           |              |              |            |

   |--------+-----------+--------------+--------------+------------+

   | MPLS-TP|           |              |              |            |

   | OAM    |  CC       |   CV         |  Traceroute  | -Delay     |

   |        |           |              |              | -Packet    |

   |        |           |              |              |   Loss     |

   +--------+-----------+--------------+--------------+------------+

 

Hope this clarifies.

 

Regards!

-Qin

 

发件人: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
发送 时间: 2014年6月24日 22:13
收件人: Qin Wu
主题: RE: Unified oam BOF proposal request in IETF 90

 

Hi Qin,

 

Please find attached a first set of comments.

 

Cheers,

Med

_______________________________________________

Time mailing list

[e-mail]

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/time" rel="nofollow">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/time

-- 

*****************************************************************

              请记住，你是独一无二的，就像其他每一个人一样 

-- 
*****************************************************************
              请记住，你是独一无二的，就像其他每一个人一样