[rbridge] OAM direction

[Vishwas Manral <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jon,

Here are a few points we need to take care for good OAM design:

1. The OAM packets should be defined as far as possible to be independent
of the lower layer.

2. As we know we already run OAM over all layers like TCP/ ICMP/ UDP/ IP or
any thing else, so as to be able to replicate real world traffic.In a TRILL
network, we can already run traffic/ OAM end to end. So if we sent IP/ ICMP
ping over the TRILL network end-to-end, it would work similar to similar
data traffic already. What is most required is how the OAM traffic is able
to monitor traffic directly over Ethernet.

3. We do not need to define every possible combination of OAM packets in
the same draft. We first need a simple set of ping and unicast traceroute.

Do let me know if this sounds reasonable?

Thanks,
Vishwas

On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 3:05 AM, Jon Hudson <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> The number one concern I hear from Users about anything UDP is that it can
> be dropped and is stateless. (big issue with VXLAN) As this is the same for
> ICMP I see no practical difference to the User which one is used.
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Sam Aldrin <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Do not have much preference of reusing the same port or not. With a
>> programmer hat on, who developed rfc4379 and it's implementation, it will
>> be klugy, and have issues when process is/was implemented in h.w. For ex:
>> had issue with vccv when used by lsp ping and bfd, due to incompatible
>> hardware in the network.
>> Having said that, idea is to use similar message or tlv formats, will
>> help immensely in adopting the standard.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Sam
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Mar 2, 2012, at 10:11 AM, Vishwas Manral <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Tissa,
>>
>> I am not sure we would want to use the same port for de-multiplexing MPLS
>> OAM and UDP based TRILL OAM packets.
>>
>> On another note, I do know that folks use different channels for testing
>> real application behavior in current networks. So yes UDP based channels
>> should be good too.
>>
>> My biggest concern is that we should not have different message formats
>> when the application works over different layers. It is for that reason
>> that BFD has been so successful (the same message format/ state machine)
>> irrespective of the lower layer protocol.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Vishwas
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 8:08 AM, Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir) <
>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>> [e-mail]
>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rbridge mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> "Do not lie. And do not do what you hate."
>
>

_______________________________________________
rbridge mailing list
[e-mail]
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge