Re: [Time] Strong Technology Dependency
Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> Mon, 30 June 2014 07:39 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 5C5071A01A0; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 00:39:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.251
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.251 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_45=0.6, 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 EfJiRQO1fCVt; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 00:39:16 -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 8735F1A0198; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 00:39:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml402-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BJK16707; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 07:39:11 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from NKGEML403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.34) by lhreml402-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.241) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 08:39:10 +0100
Received: from NKGEML501-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.155]) by nkgeml403-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.34]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 15:39:06 +0800
From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
To: "time@ietf.org" <time@ietf.org>, "opsawg@ietf.org" <opsawg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Strong Technology Dependency
Thread-Index: AQHPkExClaEuAYsfAkmaJiSeVAvEmZuIxghg
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 07:39:05 +0000
Message-ID: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA8457B68F@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com>
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>
In-Reply-To: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA845756DA@nkgeml501-mbs.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_B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA8457B68Fnkgeml501mbschi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/time/6OfKNSRXe3Be8zw7m65Kt7_FXJM
Cc: Gregory Mirsky <gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com>
Subject: Re: [Time] Strong Technology Dependency
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: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 07:39:20 -0000
Thanks for comments on the following proposed table or figure as follows: Greg>MPLS-TP uses LSP ping or, though more rarely, ICMP as-is. In fact, MPLS-TP largely re-used all IP/MPLS OAM though adding some functionality, i.e. RDI, CV, and PCS. Greg>Again, as in previous comment, MPLS-TP OAM does not present itself “different OAM technology”. [Qin]: You are right, I realized both LSP Ping and MPLS-OAM use MPLS technology while ICMP uses IP technology. I will fix this in the update. Greg>should add OWAMP and TWAMP for Performance Measurement in the following table [Qin]: Agree. Greg>Echo(Ping) in fact belongs continuity check. [Qin]: Agree. Greg>Echo(Ping) does not provide CV as IP is connectionless and has no definition of Misconnection defect. [Qin]:Not sure about this. RFC7276 said LSP Ping is used for end-to-end Connectivity Verification between two LERs. Therefore I think IP Ping can also provide CV, what am I missing? Greg>Actually can be used for BW, Delay and Loss measurement, though very rough. [Qin]: Agree and will add this into the following table. Greg>Not, BFD and BFD Echo do not provide CV for the same reason as for ICMP – do definition of Misconnection defect. Besides, BFD Echo doesn’t work for multi-hop case but only for single hop. [Qin]: Not sure about this. RFC7276 said SP Ping is used for end-to-end Connectivity Verification between two LERs. Since BFD Echo is similar to LSP Ping, I think BFD Echo also can provide CV. Greg>LSP Ping provides Continuity Check too [Qin]: Agree. Greg>All MPLS-TP OAM applicable to IP/MPLS as well [Qin]: Agree. Greg>MPLS-TP provides CC through use of BFD Greg>MPLS-TP provides CV through use of BFD and extension to provide Source ID. [Qin]: Besides using BFD, is there any other way to provide CC or CV? 发件人: OPSAWG [mailto:opsawg-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Qin Wu 发送时间: 2014年6月25日 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 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> [mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com] 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] Strong Technology Dependency Qin Wu
- [Time] Issue of OAM information Information gathe… Qin Wu
- Re: [Time] Strong Technology Dependency Qin Wu
- Re: [Time] Issue of OAM information Information g… Qin Wu
- Re: [Time] Strong Technology Dependency Huub van Helvoort
- Re: [Time] Strong Technology Dependency Gregory Mirsky
- Re: [Time] [OPSAWG] Strong Technology Dependency Gregory Mirsky
- Re: [Time] [OPSAWG] Strong Technology Dependency Tom Taylor
- Re: [Time] Strong Technology Dependency Qin Wu
- Re: [Time] Strong Technology Dependency Qin Wu
- Re: [Time] [OPSAWG] Strong Technology Dependency Huub van Helvoort
- Re: [Time] Strong Technology Dependency Huub van Helvoort
- Re: [Time] Strong Technology Dependency Qin Wu
- Re: [Time] Strong Technology Dependency Gregory Mirsky
- Re: [Time] Issue of OAM information Information g… Gregory Mirsky
- Re: [Time] Strong Technology Dependency Qin Wu
- Re: [Time] Strong Technology Dependency Gregory Mirsky
- Re: [Time] Strong Technology Dependency Sam Aldrin
- Re: [Time] Strong Technology Dependency Qin Wu
- Re: [Time] Strong Technology Dependency Sam Aldrin
- Re: [Time] Strong Technology Dependency Qin Wu
- Re: [Time] Strong Technology Dependency Sam Aldrin
- [Time] 答复: Strong Technology Dependency Qin Wu
- Re: [Time] Strong Technology Dependency Gregory Mirsky
- Re: [Time] Strong Technology Dependency Sam Aldrin
- Re: [Time] Strong Technology Dependency Gregory Mirsky
- Re: [Time] Strong Technology Dependency Sam Aldrin
- Re: [Time] Issue of OAM information Information g… Qin Wu
- Re: [Time] Issue of OAM information Information g… Gregory Mirsky