Re: [Time] Control Protocol Functionality or OAM function

Sam Aldrin <aldrin.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 27 June 2014 18:27 UTC

Return-Path: <aldrin.ietf@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 E134A1B297D for <time@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Jun 2014 11:27:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, 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 9eUIeth5JEeV for <time@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Jun 2014 11:27:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qa0-x236.google.com (mail-qa0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::236]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3626F1B2979 for <time@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Jun 2014 11:27:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qa0-f54.google.com with SMTP id v10so4372626qac.27 for <time@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Jun 2014 11:27:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=pcBpNg2Vinj2BXlW+YqInivbRWzaDJIknQ34/e2Jl1E=; b=ymGARwe+Fas+MwaPNqUFIK3WVPRV+VQDADqXiyu7rSY5MjCDtLWbqetEWLrVT6fHjh Wc+qKm/W1mVPIKhJ065gTqFG0iZYJBR8zN89znnyWeG7bcqV/lcK90ywPjyfDy0et1I3 pk1LOl4fQOX8pID5GcUqHfh50HR39ewzwYJ/Pw0mb1qDcgwRyGKeYltkpDQBNebEEJ51 4o/zxM5x6xU47tT2I+kPgiJSqQBJJDU/+BQ6u3IJY0NjSXv1+KQX0c/pR3LcrJxvVN2R r9xoQ61IWvMHmz42ps3N8rDGMqL01wuCw8nvJM/OPNdfj+JukJIloNG5GTc2rvRjZwuU 1DiA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.140.94.103 with SMTP id f94mr35284040qge.64.1403893672357; Fri, 27 Jun 2014 11:27:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.96.70.106 with HTTP; Fri, 27 Jun 2014 11:27:52 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA84579BA4@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA845757FE@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com> <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B7E2509@eusaamb103.ericsson.se> <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA84579BA4@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 11:27:52 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+C0YO21VUPemiENQLhSO6y_vx+ya_-EiU3cx72aMoYO6H-FQQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Sam Aldrin <aldrin.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113acfb2a4bca604fcd577bc
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/time/MRZ8924UyztW0rMPT9xI69RBPeI
Cc: Gregory Mirsky <gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com>, "time@ietf.org" <time@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Time] Control Protocol Functionality or OAM function
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: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 18:27:57 -0000

Qin, Greg, et al,

I think the discussion is about the same but confused a little, with mix of
terms.

OAM tools we have now are defined for Data plane verification and also
consistency verification between Control plane and data plane, which
effectively verify control plane as well,
Whether the OAM markings are carried in control protocol or data plane
header, do not define OAM control plane or data plane, rather its purpose
define what it is for.
In some cases, there is strict OAM control protocol defined
[RFC6812]/TWAMP, which is a protocol for OAM itself.

Coming to connectionless and connection oriented, both have on demand and
configuration models.
LSP ping for example could be used as ondemand (LDP LSP) or configured
(MPLS TP). Hence configuration may or may not be required.

We won't run into confusion if we stick to terms defined already
[rfc7276]and not re-define the definition.
If there is none in existence, let us define prior to its usage.

cheers
-sam


On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 3:52 AM, Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> wrote:

>  You are right, a lot of OAM protocols have both control packet and Test
> packet since they are connection oriented while some other protocols only
> have test packet since they are connectionless based.
>
> Whether it is connection oriented or connectionless based, OAM
> configuration is needed to enable OAM function and active OAM service.
>
>
>
> RSVP-TE is not strict OAM related protocol but can be used to carry OAM
> information.
>
> The question is whether LSP ping is connection oriented or connectionless
> based. This is not very clear to me.
>
>
>
> Regards!
>
> -Qin
>
> *发件人:* Gregory Mirsky [mailto:gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com]
> *发送时间:* 2014年6月25日 22:09
> *收件人:* Qin Wu; time@ietf.org
> *主题:* RE: Control Protocol Functionality or OAM function
>
>
>
> Hi Qin,
>
> I agree, that we don’t have many examples of OAM Control protocols but
> there are couple examples that come to mind. IPPM WG developed One-Way
> Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP) RFC 4656 and Two-Way Active Measurement
> Protocol (TWAMP) RFC 5357. Each has Control protocol and Test protocol.
>
> Then there are numerous RSVP and LSP ping extensions to configure ,
> control OAM and MPLS-TP OAM in particular.
>
>
>
>                 Regards,
>
>                                 Greg
>
>
>
> *From:* Time [mailto:time-bounces@ietf.org <time-bounces@ietf.org>] *On
> Behalf Of *Qin Wu
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 25, 2014 2:07 AM
> *To:* 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Time mailing list
> Time@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/time
>
>