Re: [Time] Strong Technology Dependency

Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> Tue, 01 July 2014 11:03 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 967B51A003A for <time@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 04:03:03 -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 6MCsA-AUHON5 for <time@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 04:03:00 -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 696FB1A0032 for <time@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 04:02:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BJL43936; Tue, 01 Jul 2014 11:02:57 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from NKGEML406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.37) by lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 12:02:55 +0100
Received: from NKGEML501-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.155]) by nkgeml406-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.37]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 19:02:52 +0800
From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
To: "huubatwork@gmail.com" <huubatwork@gmail.com>, "time@ietf.org" <time@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Time] Strong Technology Dependency
Thread-Index: AQHPkExClaEuAYsfAkmaJiSeVAvEmZuIxghggABT/oCAAXQfAP//xWoAgADAxhA=
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2014 11:02:51 +0000
Message-ID: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA8457BFAD@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> <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA8457B68F@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com> <53B15A8F.3080500@gmail.com> <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA8457BCA1@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com> <53B26192.2060707@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <53B26192.2060707@gmail.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_B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA8457BFADnkgeml501mbschi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/time/V74oBh9lisyNIdYtwZ_UQ5YCAvE
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: Tue, 01 Jul 2014 11:03:03 -0000

Thank for explanation on relation between G.8013 and IEEE 802.1ag CFM.
I see the pictures how these ITU-T documents are related.
Most important G.8113.2 is defined by IETF based on IETF work (e.g.,RFC6426,RFC6428).

Regards!
-Qin
发件人: Time [mailto:time-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Huub van Helvoort
发送时间: 2014年7月1日 15:22
收件人: Qin Wu; time@ietf.org
主题: Re: [Time] Strong Technology Dependency

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: 2014年6月30日 20:40
收件人: time@ietf.org<mailto: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: 2014年6月25日 16:06
收件人: time@ietf.org<mailto:time@ietf.org>; opsawg@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>
抄送: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com<mailto: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 mailing list

Time@ietf.org<mailto:Time@ietf.org>

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