Subject: Re: [ippm] Fwd: FYI: draft-svdberg-temon-00.txt

From: Steven Van den Berghe <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 10:25:57 +0100

Hi Merike et al.,

I was just about to write the same message to the ippm-list, but it
seems
i need to learn to type a bit faster :) Thanks for noticing the
document.

The document is indeed intended to initiate a link between the
requirements of traffic engineering and the efforts done in the IPPM
working group. I must however warn you that, asside from the numerous
spelling mistakes, the document should be consider as a very early first
draft. I hope to get some comments from TEWG list to enhance it and to
distill further requirements towards measurements.

However, the main ingredients might already trigger some IPPM-activity:
  - distinction between operational and diagnostic measurements
  - co-ordination of passive and active measurement, (so result
retrieval
should be decoupeled from the measurement protocol)
  - higher level "metrics" (like "if metric > value then snmp-trap") to
reduce the information flow

Also, in the context of our proprietary traffic engineering work, we
need
to take into account MPLS, Multipath and DiffServ. So, referencing to
the
OWDP-protocol discussion, a type-P description might need even more then
a
"well-known service", DSCP or PHB description.

Again, these remarks are only intended to be some triggers to get the
larger discussion on the practical usage of measurements going.

So, thanks for bringing this to the attention of the IPPM-WG and i hope
that you all enjoy the document.

Steven Van den Berghe

PS: all the spelling mistakes are due to too much caffeine, too nightly
hours and a crappy spelling checker. I'll fix them in a later version.

Merike Kaeo wrote:

> This may be of interest to some on the list who do not follow TEWG.....
>
>   -merike
>
> >The following draft has been uploaded to the IETF server:
> >
> >"Some Issues for Designing a Measurement Architecture for Traffic
> >Engineered IP Networks."
> >(http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-svdberg-temon-00.txt)
> >
> >This document tries to describe some requirements for measurements in
> >the context of a traffic engineered network. It would be great if the
> >traffic engineering working group could review this and give us some
> >comments on this work .
> >
> >Best regards,
> >Steven Van den Berghe
>
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm

Steven Van den Berghe
[email-masked]
Workgroup Broadband-Networks
Department Information Technology
Ghent University - Belgium
Phone:  +32 (0)9 267 35 86 | Fax  :  +32 (0)9 267 35 99
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
"Law of Cybernetic Entomology" There is always one more
bug.

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
[email-masked]
http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm

---

From: stanislav shalunov <[email-masked]>
Date: 27 Feb 2001 14:02:44 -0500

Steven Van den Berghe <[email-masked]> writes:

> need to take into account MPLS, Multipath and DiffServ. So,
> referencing to the OWDP-protocol discussion, a type-P description
> might need even more then a "well-known service", DSCP or PHB
> description.

Steven,

We've only specified DSCP and PHB ID for now, because these are the
things that are standartized.  Of course, in the future one might need
to, say, send an RSVP packet before transmitting; since we don't yet
know what signalling mechanisms will be used, and what services will
be provided by them, it's not clear what more we can do at this
point...

But in the future, one hopes one could use 32-bit Type-P descriptor
field with first bit set to 1 to describe whatever appears on the
service arena.  (There aren't too many services that one can imagine,
and it's unlikely that too many mechanisms will be used to request
them.)

-- 
Stanislav Shalunov		http://www.internet2.edu/~shalunov/

"Hey!  Who took the cork off my lunch?!"               -- W. C. Fields
_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
[email-masked]
http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm

---

From: Steven Van den Berghe <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 10:28:20 +0100

Hi Stanislav,

Thanks for your response. Your hopes were exactly the answer that i was
looking for.

Our proprietary architecture will probably be using a seperate
configuration mechanism to map the Type-P descriptor to the exact Type-P
format, unless the OWDP would allow for TLV-like extensions so we can do
the mapping configuration that way (yep, you can count me as a supporter
of the TLV-approach:)).

I don't think that exentisibilety should be contrary to the
easy-implement-goal, since a basic functionality as described by the
current draft would be a "SHOULD be supported" and the TLV-extensions a
"COULD be supported and SHOULD be ignored if not supported".

Best Regards,
Steven

Computers aren't intelligent, they only think they are.