Re: [Time] [OPSAWG] Strong Technology Dependency

Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com> Mon, 30 June 2014 13:05 UTC

Return-Path: <tom.taylor.stds@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 C75031A02EE; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 06:05:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.8
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 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, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, J_CHICKENPOX_45=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_46=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_48=0.6, 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 cLKqCiCcTVX7; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 06:05:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ie0-x230.google.com (mail-ie0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 465FB1A02DB; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 06:05:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ie0-f176.google.com with SMTP id rd18so6547891iec.7 for <multiple recipients>; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 06:05:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=nylMR6KMUPbw2rnpOPPDK2cPT6+jXkKtx0d2XRFaui0=; b=lwftkjXTWQCFNj3X/4lXS4Q19dKcASBoOBpZUhghFA/w0lUB/nrHg9xT5Jh5aVLRnC lcC/Y1U4BFXSz2jkdWKn6R7stXuDU4ImKdYe5iBiAM78iNppD86Z30yoDFEuIBFPOrXI dLaE1eX/WNxrhsqrnJZgNNkEQj7dvuixcXF0W7YKfwQ1jqp7q304P6ro7VZWSVxs0aKQ fcOmKInrdwJGt9sYpEo9rikRksj4qiGPIDhOzqL8XyjsmBmuYGfqyo8FD3P58j3R8pft BKrwW24dL5Eqj0ho19phgbNgskw2ISRiV+TrOU9rbIQglxd9nMBbMyZyy69yleyzijZL RZoA==
X-Received: by 10.43.118.67 with SMTP id fp3mr37697553icc.40.1404133502720; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 06:05:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.100] (dsl-173-206-0-110.tor.primus.ca. [173.206.0.110]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id t18sm24747755igr.18.2014.06.30.06.05.01 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 30 Jun 2014 06:05:02 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <53B1607C.90608@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 09:05:00 -0400
From: Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; 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>, "opsawg@ietf.org" <opsawg@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>
In-Reply-To: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA8457B68F@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/time/mjVzkkUzv7y38PZszhbcCbu_sRI
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 18:06:18 -0700
Cc: Gregory Mirsky <gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com>
Subject: Re: [Time] [OPSAWG] 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 13:05:05 -0000

I think one problem here is over-use of the word "connectivity". Aren't 
you really testing for reachability?

Tom Taylor

On 30/06/2014 3:39 AM, Qin Wu wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OPSAWG mailing list
> OPSAWG@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
>