Re: [Time] questions regarding considered data plane technologies

Qin Wu <> Wed, 11 June 2014 10:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46E5A1A0319 for <>; Wed, 11 Jun 2014 03:06:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.401
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eFrkPAy-gMsd for <>; Wed, 11 Jun 2014 03:06:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4466C1A044D for <>; Wed, 11 Jun 2014 03:06:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (EHLO ([]) by (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BIH59165; Wed, 11 Jun 2014 10:06:45 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Wed, 11 Jun 2014 11:06:44 +0100
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Wed, 11 Jun 2014 18:06:37 +0800
From: Qin Wu <>
To: "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: questions regarding considered data plane technologies
Thread-Index: Ac+FT88C6WZOXF8pTFq1grEiJUSU3gAB24xAAAEXQFAAAB8b8A==
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 10:06:36 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA8454AFC5nkgeml501mbschi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Subject: Re: [Time] questions regarding considered data plane technologies
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Transport Independent OAM in Multi-Layer network Entity \(TIME\) discussion list." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 10:06:49 -0000

Good point, we need to decide where Technology Specific OAM is required, and where Generic OAM should be used.
We have initial description of use cases in the draft-ww-opsawg-multi-layer-oam.
We plan to have separate Use Case I-D describing the type of network where Generic OAM is required.
Your contribution and  input are welcome.

发件人: []
发送时间: 2014年6月11日 18:01
收件人: Qin Wu;
主题: RE: questions regarding considered data plane technologies

Hi Qin,

Okay, thanks! This is interesting!

It will be great to have an use case that describes how the GMPLS OAM can be supported/enhanced by TIME!

Best regards,

From: Qin Wu []
Sent: woensdag 11 juni 2014 11:47
To: Karagiannis, G. (EWI);<>
Subject: RE: questions regarding considered data plane technologies

Good question.
The assumption we are making at this stage is the network we are tackling should have IP capability.

To support multi-layer OAM, a good candidate data plane technologies we are thinking is BFD protocol since it can work independent of encapsulating protocols, and medium
Types. Other existing data plane technologies can be reused, e.g., existing OAM protocols in layer 1&2&3. The TIME will most focus on how to abstract OAM information common to various
Layer(especially layer 4 to 7) and provide them to management entity via unified interface. It doesn’t matter what kind of data plane technologies are used.

To apply multi-layer OAM to service function chaining environment, new data plane OAM atop layer 3 may be specified. That could be a new shim layer that carries OAM information to support various OAM functions. The TIME also need to think about how to abstract these kind of OAM information from that layer in the form of Generic Yang Data Model.

发件人: Time [] 代表<>
发送时间: 2014年6月11日 16:34
主题: [Time] questions regarding considered data plane technologies

Hi Qin,
What are the data plane technologies that  are considered by TIME for OAM support?
Are the same ones that are being considered for GMPLS, e.g., packet, cell, TDM, wavelength, etc?
Best regards,