IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rbridge] draft-tissa-trill-oam-03 : ICMP vs RFC 4379 message channel

Sam Aldrin <aldrin.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 02 March 2012 19:16 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 A6BF721F8557 for <ietfarch-trill-archive-Osh9cae4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Mar 2012 11:16:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.66
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.66 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.542, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, 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 gg2wUHPNdPqL for <ietfarch-trill-archive-Osh9cae4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Mar 2012 11:16:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from boreas.isi.edu (boreas.isi.edu [128.9.160.161]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07FA521F8555 for <trill-archive-Osh9cae4@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Mar 2012 11:16:30 -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 q22ImcS7014400; Fri, 2 Mar 2012 10:48:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pz0-f52.google.com (mail-pz0-f52.google.com [209.85.210.52]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q22IluMJ013982 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 2 Mar 2012 10:48:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by dadp12 with SMTP id p12so2042197dad.39 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 02 Mar 2012 10:47:56 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of aldrin.ietf@gmail.com designates 10.68.223.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.68.223.161;
Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of aldrin.ietf@gmail.com designates 10.68.223.161 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=aldrin.ietf@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=aldrin.ietf@gmail.com
Received: from mr.google.com ([10.68.223.161]) by 10.68.223.161 with SMTP id qv1mr19581551pbc.2.1330714076645 (num_hops = 1); Fri, 02 Mar 2012 10:47:56 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:message-id:cc:x-mailer:from:subject:date:to; bh=q23Wfl7DHnC9abs7+7rmS1dK96DzyY8nBwxwQjg4JsU=; b=hIzHQupwduln6/w1VA0TaoBuC5PYfBvCf5sLlRmQRmvqAd+DgYttOXrjcHijiF5kZ7 f3gPAvvsd1BBiyJmmThgMWnOiJ5J20SeUQmFTdioIOjDBH81qX0DF5fT9sp9SuKXuKmb dAcc7AKRiSoLZ0OlqxeUVKVY3CdLpe4RZvkk8FmGPolGgJcLb3wV7Ce8w6na3sjghGWl JIjo8cHBiMfE0fCBUTkPnfPNaKbfFitkXlVrry66UgSaCL4F/WSYqXdz1MNr6OXXfjIR DAbbPZDxnugM1KJyPEAyuyuHkHKv9gr+8qRI0so3ZgfPpYOGmYncjfEu9MRyO7S/Vp5o a2hA==
Received: by 10.68.223.161 with SMTP id qv1mr16325185pbc.2.1330714076590; Fri, 02 Mar 2012 10:47:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.253.139] ([12.207.18.42]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id y3sm5637792pbr.46.2012.03.02.10.47.54 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 02 Mar 2012 10:47:54 -0800 (PST)
References: <344037D7CFEFE84E97E9CC1F56C5F4A5AD91C2@xmb-sjc-214.amer.cisco.com> <CAOyVPHRxasYYWxQP3uKLYRVV4vyr6GBRjiJLfni_4jc9jfhvdw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOyVPHRxasYYWxQP3uKLYRVV4vyr6GBRjiJLfni_4jc9jfhvdw@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Message-Id: <7A958C02-3E5F-4F18-8BCB-3A63F76D8E18@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (9A405)
From: Sam Aldrin <aldrin.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2012 10:47:53 -0800
To: Vishwas Manral <vishwas.ietf@gmail.com>
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: aldrin.ietf@gmail.com
Cc: "Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)" <tsenevir@cisco.com>, "rbridge@postel.org" <rbridge@postel.org>
Subject: Re: [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="===============1070851342=="
Sender: rbridge-bounces@postel.org
Errors-To: rbridge-bounces@postel.org

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 <vishwas.ietf@gmail.com> 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) <tsenevir@cisco.com> 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
> rbridge@postel.org
> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge

_______________________________________________
rbridge mailing list
rbridge@postel.org
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email