Subject: [Lime] 2015-10-03 Re: CFM semantics, IP and MPLS OAM - how to proceed?

From: gmail邮箱 <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2015 17:34:29 +0800

The proposed data model covers this case fairly well as a service model. The IP/MPLS end of things is not covered, IMO. If I'm missing something that the authors believes shows that it is covered, an example showing an intra-domain traceroute would be helpful. Inter-domain traceroute is a good example to show as well. 
［Qin］：As we dicussed in the previous thread，one example we gave is user A request a oam service from the management system by using layer independent oam model defined by LIME，e.g.，traceroute from src B to dst D，the management system maps layer independent model into layer specific oam model based on oam tech used from B to D，e.g.，BFD is used，then layer independent model is mapped to bfd model. layer independent model can provide 5 Level hierarchy if following cfm generized struct，if bfd model is extended from lime model，bfd will be corresponding to lowest 3 levels struct，the highest levels will be set by the management system or set as default value if operator doesnt like to support. alternatively，if bfd doesnt want to follow comnon struct proposed by lime and want to use its own struct，then to provide consistent conf and reporting，we need to rely on complicated mapping between two hetergeneous structs.
regarding interdomail case，charter doesn’t put it in scope.
 > Could you give an example of the reporting missmatch you are concerned, please.
 In path-discovery, grouping monitor-stats is used. This includes a min, average and max delay stat. This isn't something returned from many traceroute IP implementations. Perhaps it should be, but it's a bit different. 
［Qin］sure，we can tweek base model to make change as u suggested，if u believe this is a serious issue.
but not sure this has to do with cfm like struct，in any case，we make the layer independent model more generic and extensible！
 -- Jeff

发自我的 iPhone