Re: [Time] Strong Technology Dependency

Huub van Helvoort <huubatwork@gmail.com> Tue, 01 July 2014 07:21 UTC

Return-Path: <huubatwork@gmail.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 678601B27CA for <time@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 00:21:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.174
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.174 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, MIME_HTML_ONLY=0.723, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 gWYNWNWeR9hM for <time@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 00:21:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x22c.google.com (mail-wi0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22c]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B80F1A0190 for <time@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 00:21:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wi0-f172.google.com with SMTP id hi2so7265570wib.5 for <time@ietf.org>; Tue, 01 Jul 2014 00:21:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:disposition-notification-to:date:from:reply-to :user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=J/mvcTztVucT3EbSUKHIlC5k09Pq9e2fQriEmcKCxxc=; b=Asq2EV/7B7g9YHuH/IE5K4A430DC/xcQHX8QXz99rdzXYSKHoR/8Rx/PUKsBJELFPn yd2a4nx4vCAKAlPrBp46uAE6rXbphLvaTHmoWCzw1Vyw6Ifso9k3jVo05WiG4U8zufyA 0pTC4+kQqoogJOEewOXqJQU3Y/X0tBzQKJN62drbHQdlzk+6vzluppZXdKu6pDOFFW8K KFvWGu3lMSO7gl7R0ZYUEA26LIKqldvJdjO36GqCMQDJgydCWaRaTKPfHwLou2z/6+TC 9xnW7M0YIKHgG0kvBwRN5F+gHqK1LQcsoajW+DYm8t7/ODOWAl7U1LRD/VnRQtQHrxhx 9Cfg==
X-Received: by 10.194.237.135 with SMTP id vc7mr9919882wjc.86.1404199316051; Tue, 01 Jul 2014 00:21:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from McAsterix.local (g215085.upc-g.chello.nl. [80.57.215.85]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id d3sm40120749wiy.13.2014.07.01.00.21.54 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 01 Jul 2014 00:21:55 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <53B26192.2060707@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2014 09:21:54 +0200
From: Huub van Helvoort <huubatwork@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>, "time@ietf.org" <time@ietf.org>
References: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA845491A9@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330016F2E@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA84573094@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933001D499@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA845756DA@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com> <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA8457B68F@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com> <53B15A8F.3080500@gmail.com> <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA8457BCA1@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA8457BCA1@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/html; charset=GB2312
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/time/6A7jxwM4fikx8VjQszRPEq_4eIY
Subject: Re: [Time] Strong Technology Dependency
X-BeenThere: time@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: huubatwork@gmail.com
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: Tue, 01 Jul 2014 07:21:59 -0000

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:time-bounces@ietf.org] 代 表 Huub van Helvoort
发 送时间: 2014630 20:40
收件人: time@ietf.org
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:opsawg-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Qin Wu
发送时间: 2014625 16:06
收件人: time@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org
抄送: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
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: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com [mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com]
发送 时间: 2014624 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

Time@ietf.org

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