[rbridge] draft-tissa-trill-oam-03 : ICMP vs RFC 4379 message channel
"Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)" <tsenevir@cisco.com> Fri, 02 March 2012 16:18 UTC
Return-Path: <rbridge-bounces@postel.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-trill-archive-Osh9cae4@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-trill-archive-Osh9cae4@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28AE321F872F for <ietfarch-trill-archive-Osh9cae4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Mar 2012 08:18:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.947
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.947 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.651, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PKAuXOtH5Wlf for <ietfarch-trill-archive-Osh9cae4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Mar 2012 08:18:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from boreas.isi.edu (boreas.isi.edu [128.9.160.161]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5171F21F872E for <trill-archive-Osh9cae4@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Mar 2012 08:18:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from boreas.isi.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q22G94vD015600; Fri, 2 Mar 2012 08:09:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mtv-iport-1.cisco.com (mtv-iport-1.cisco.com [173.36.130.12]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q22G8VSq015522 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 2 Mar 2012 08:08:40 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=tsenevir@cisco.com; l=7065; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1330704520; x=1331914120; h=mime-version:subject:date:message-id:from:to; bh=DCm+zpuUDltPtE2vq93RRIPVlsEjWXzlJHFeGiyzgbs=; b=WoHIWGLrAYe+mMQB2hKoC+gOw04eHLoEEBZdJoNU98NpLq43DYWxEoOy dkEpBi4x0prWZfTF1Cwh5H7eJWyZ1ivu0paaaLxXsWUQ/hSoX8LeG4wCP FjK+99ugkPMqB7gvXCtwXufbIiusvMESJ05m2A5YhzkgLaZYclZOQEZnF g=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAP7vUE+rRDoH/2dsb2JhbABDglKxc4EHgX8BBBIBCREDWwEqBhgHVwEEGxqHYwGfaYEnAZcajEKCP2MEiFCgBA
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.73,518,1325462400"; d="scan'208,217"; a="31605087"
Received: from mtv-core-2.cisco.com ([171.68.58.7]) by mtv-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 02 Mar 2012 16:08:31 +0000
Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by mtv-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q22G8VmD016723 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 2 Mar 2012 16:08:31 GMT
Received: from xmb-sjc-214.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.145]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 2 Mar 2012 08:08:31 -0800
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2012 08:08:30 -0800
Message-ID: <344037D7CFEFE84E97E9CC1F56C5F4A5AD91C2@xmb-sjc-214.amer.cisco.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: draft-tissa-trill-oam-03 : ICMP vs RFC 4379 message channel
Thread-Index: Acz4jrWIpgpvAmH+R+eXyKiWnLpB9w==
From: "Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)" <tsenevir@cisco.com>
To: rbridge@postel.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Mar 2012 16:08:31.0193 (UTC) FILETIME=[B6269C90:01CCF88E]
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: tsenevir@cisco.com
Subject: [rbridge] draft-tissa-trill-oam-03 : ICMP vs RFC 4379 message channel
X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge>
List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0209668965=="
Sender: rbridge-bounces@postel.org
Errors-To: rbridge-bounces@postel.org
Dear All Current draft-tissa-till-oam utilize ICMP extensions defined in RFC 4884. I have also heard preference of using UDP based messaging channel defined in RFC 4379. Advantage of using RFC 4379 methods is we can utilize the same framework and OAM challenges in TRILL and MPLS world are similar. However, we need to define new TLV series and message types. Question arise whether we should use the same wellknown UDP port used in MPLS OAM or a use a different UDP port. Advantage of ICMP method is we are utilizing the ICMP infrastructure that is commonly utilized in IP world. However, we need to define RFC 4884 extensions and it also heavily depends on acceptance of individual submission draft-shen-traceroute-ping-ext-04. Would like to see the preference from the WG on specific method over the other ? Thanks Tissa
_______________________________________________ rbridge mailing list rbridge@postel.org http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge
- [rbridge] draft-tissa-trill-oam-03 : ICMP vs RFC … Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)
- Re: [rbridge] draft-tissa-trill-oam-03 : ICMP vs … Sam Aldrin
- Re: [rbridge] draft-tissa-trill-oam-03 : ICMP vs … Vishwas Manral
- Re: [rbridge] draft-tissa-trill-oam-03 : ICMP vs … Sam Aldrin
- Re: [rbridge] draft-tissa-trill-oam-03 : ICMP vs … Jon Hudson