[trill] TRILL OAM Requirements: Connectivity

Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com> Thu, 26 April 2012 19:39 UTC

Return-Path: <narten@us.ibm.com>
X-Original-To: trill@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: trill@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEAB821E8186 for <trill@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 12:39:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 tl4UzwOqKcsB for <trill@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 12:39:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from e31.co.us.ibm.com (e31.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.149]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A95EE21E8185 for <trill@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 12:39:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from /spool/local by e31.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for <trill@ietf.org> from <narten@us.ibm.com>; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 13:39:52 -0600
Received: from d03dlp03.boulder.ibm.com (9.17.202.179) by e31.co.us.ibm.com (192.168.1.131) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 13:39:31 -0600
Received: from d03relay03.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay03.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.228]) by d03dlp03.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D74419D8053 for <trill@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 13:39:20 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from d03av05.boulder.ibm.com (d03av05.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.85]) by d03relay03.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id q3QJdIT0156782 for <trill@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 13:39:18 -0600
Received: from d03av05.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av05.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id q3QJdGPX004457 for <trill@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 13:39:16 -0600
Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com ([9.80.5.204]) by d03av05.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id q3QJdFCY004350 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <trill@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 13:39:16 -0600
Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (8.14.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id q3QJdCfJ019770 for <trill@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 15:39:12 -0400
Message-Id: <201204261939.q3QJdCfJ019770@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
To: trill@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 15:39:12 -0400
From: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER
x-cbid: 12042619-7282-0000-0000-00000884AD40
Subject: [trill] TRILL OAM Requirements: Connectivity
X-BeenThere: trill@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <trill.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/trill>, <mailto:trill-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trill>
List-Post: <mailto:trill@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:trill-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill>, <mailto:trill-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 19:39:58 -0000

draft-tissa-trill-oam-req-00.txt has the following definition:

>    Connected: The term connected is used to indicate reachability; RB2
>    is connected to RB1 implies that RB2 is reachable from RB1.

This is an unituitive definition to me. In my mind, "connected" means
two device are (essentially) separated by a wire. Or, a node is
"connected" to a network. I.e,. the two nodes are neighbors.

Where does this definition of "connected" come from? Is this taken
from somewhere else? Or is this a new definition for TRILL OAM?

Why not use a term like "reachable"?

Later, one of the requirements is:

>    OAM MUST have the ability to verify an RBridge RB1 is connected to a
>    specific RBridge RB2.

Given the above defintion, the usage of the term "connected" above is
murky to me. The definitions section uses "connected" in a much
broader sense than two neighbors being directly attached.

Is the above requirement that RB1 be able to verify it is a neighbor
of RB2 (and has connectivity?)?

Or, if the requirement is testing connectivity between arbitrary RBs,
how is that different from other requirements that relate to path
verification?

>    OAM MUST provide functions that enable an RBridge to perform a
>    Continuity Check to any other RBridge over a specified path or a set
>    of paths.

This section uses "continuity check", which seems like a more precise
term than "connected". 

Thomas