From nobody Thu Aug 21 23:01:56 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: time@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: time@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9BFD1A008B for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 23:01:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.418 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.418 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WmYxqHgfrrZY for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 23:01:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0DDDA1A0077 for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 23:01:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml404-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BIM81306; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 06:01:51 +0000 (GMT) Received: from NKGEML402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.33) by lhreml404-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.218) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 07:01:50 +0100 Received: from NKGEML501-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.209]) by nkgeml402-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.33]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 14:01:44 +0800 From: Qin Wu To: "time@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: TIME proposal in OPS-Area meeting and RTGWG meeting Thread-Index: Ac+mZLRdcwchI1ZcRcO1nl5LVG7l8gXaVjEQ Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 06:01:43 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.138.41.180] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA845BACC0nkgeml501mbschi_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/time/-kqN11Q5MipcmfqIybz4okh1syw Cc: Benoit Claise Subject: Re: [Time] TIME proposal in OPS-Area meeting and RTGWG meeting X-BeenThere: time@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Transport Independent OAM in Multi-Layer network Entity \(TIME\) discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 06:01:56 -0000 --_000_B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA845BACC0nkgeml501mbschi_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 SGksIEZvbGtzOg0KDQpTb3JyeSBmb3IgbGF0ZSBmb2xsb3d1cC4NCg0KV2UgaGFkIGEgZ29vZCBk aXNjdXNzaW9uIGluIFJUR1dHIGFuZCBPUFNBV0cgbWVldGluZy4NCg0KaHR0cDovL3d3dy5pZXRm Lm9yZy9wcm9jZWVkaW5ncy85MC9taW51dGVzL21pbnV0ZXMtOTAtcnRnd2cNCk9wc2F3ZyBtZWV0 aW5nIG1pbnV0ZXMgaGF2ZW6hr3QgYmVlbiBwb3N0ZWQgeWV0Lg0KDQpQZW9wbGUgY29uY2VybmVk IGEgbG90IGFib3V0IGRlZmluaW5nIG9uZSBHT0FNIHByb3RvY29sIGluIHRoZSBkYXRhIHBsYW5l Lg0KVGhlcmUgaGF2ZSBhbHJlYWR5IGhhZCBhIGxvdCBvZiB3b3JrIGluIFJUR1dHIHRvIGRpc2N1 c3MgdXNpbmcgR2VuZXJpYyBUTFYNCmFuZCBIZWFkZXIgZXh0ZW5zaW9uIHRvIGNhcnJ5IE9BTSBp bmZvcm1hdGlvbi4gU29tZSBvdGhlciBlZmZvcnQgY2FuIGJlIHNlZW4gaW4gSVRVLVQuDQoNCkFu b3RoZXIgY29uY2VybiBpcyBpZiBtdWx0aS1sYXllciBtYW5hZ2VtZW50IHBsYW5lIGNvbnNvbGlk YXRpb24gd2lsbCBhbHNvIGNhdXNlDQpDcm9zc2luZyBsYXllciBib3VuZGFyeSBpbnRyb2R1Y2Vk IGJ5IGludGVyLWxheWVyIG9wZXJhdGlvbi4NCg0KQmFzZWQgb24gdGhlIGRpc2N1c3Npb24gaW4g Ym90aCBSVEdXRy9PUFNBV0cgbWVldGluZyBhbmQgaW4gdGhlIGNvcnJpZG9ycywNCldlIGZlZWwg bG9vayBpbnRvIG11bHRpLWxheWVyIE9BTSBtYW5hZ2VtZW50IGlzIGdvb2QgZGlyZWN0aW9uIGFu ZCBjb21wbGltZW50YXJ5DQp0byB3aGF0IGhhcyBiZWVuIGRvbmUgaW4gUlRHIGFyZWEgcmVnYXJk aW5nIGRhdGEgcGxhbmUgT0FNKGUuZy4sT3ZlcmxheSBPQU0pLg0KDQpUbyBhZGRyZXNzIGNvbmNl cm4gcmFpc2VkIGluIHRoZSBtZWV0aW5nLCB3ZSBwcm9wb3NlIHRvIGZvY3VzIG9uIG1hbmFnZW1l bnQgcGxhbmUgY29uc29saWRhdGlvbiBhbmQNCnVzZSBsYXllciBpbmRlcGVuZGVudCBPQU0gbWFu YWdlbWVudCB0byByZXBsYWNlIHRyYW5zcG9ydCBpbmRlcGVuZGVudCBPQU0uDQoNCldlIGJlbGll dmUgbG9va2luZyBpbnRvIGxheWVyIGluZGVwZW5kZW50IE9BTSBtYW5hZ2VtZW50IGFuZCBzdGl0 Y2hpbmcgZGlmZmVyZW50IGxheWVyIE9BTXMNCmNhbiBwcm92aWRlIGJldHRlciBPQU0gdmlzaWJp bGl0eS4NClRvIGFjaGlldmUgdGhpcywgb25lIHBvc3NpYmxlIGFwcHJvYWNoIGlzIHRvIGFwcGx5 IENGTSBsaWtlIG1vZGVsIHRvIGFsbCB0aGUgZXhpc3RpbmcgT0FNIHRlY2hub2xvZ2llcywgdGhl bg0KV2UgY2FuIG1vZGVsIGRpZmZlcmVudCB2YXJpb3VzIE9BTSBwcm90b2NvbCBpbiB0aGUgc2Ft ZSB3YXkuDQpUaGUgcHJvYmxlbSBzdGF0ZW1lbnQgZHJhZnQgYW5kIHVzZSBjYXNlIGRyYWZ0IHdp bGwgYmUgdXBkYXRlZCBzb29uLg0KDQpUaGUgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0IHdpbGwgYmUgdXBkYXRlZCBh cyB3ZWxsLiBXZSBoYXZlIHNlbnQgYSByZXF1ZXN0IHRvIEFELg0KDQpSZWdhcmRzIQ0KLVFpbg0K DQoNCreivP7IyzogVGltZSBbbWFpbHRvOnRpbWUtYm91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZ10gtPqx7SBRaW4g V3UNCreiy83KsbzkOiAyMDE0xOo31MIyM8jVIDE4OjU1DQrK1bz+yMs6IHRpbWVAaWV0Zi5vcmcN Ctb3zOI6IFtUaW1lXSBUSU1FIHByb3Bvc2FsIGluIE9QUy1BcmVhIG1lZXRpbmcgYW5kIFJUR1dH IG1lZXRpbmcNCg0KSGksIGZvbGtzOg0KSnVzdCB3YW50IHRvIHJlbWluZCB3ZSBoYXZlIHR3byBw cmVzZW50YXRpb25zIG9uIFRJTUUgUHJvcG9zYWwgaW4gb3BzYXdnIG1lZXRpbmcgYW5kIHJ0Z3dn IG1lZXRpbmcuDQowOTAwLTExMzAgIE1vcm5pbmcgU2Vzc2lvbiBJDQpPbnRhcmlvICAgICBPUFMg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIG9wc2F3ZyAgICAgIE9wZXJhdGlvbnMgYW5kIE1hbmFnZW1lbnQg QXJlYSBXb3JraW5nIEdyb3VwIFdHIC0gQ29tYmluZWQgd2l0aCBPUFNBUkVBDQoNCjE1MjAtMTY1 MCAgQWZ0ZXJub29uIFNlc3Npb24gSUkNCg0KQmFsbHJvb20gICAgICAgICAgUlRHICAgICAgICAg cnRnd2cgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIFJvdXRpbmcgQXJlYSBXb3JraW5nIEdyb3VwIFdHDQoNCklm IHlvdSB3YW50IHRvIGtub3cgdGhlIGxhdGVzdCBwcm9ncmVzcyBhbmQgc3RhdHVzIG9mIFRJTUUg cHJvcG9zYWwsIHBsZWFzZSBqb2luIHVzLg0KWW91ciBjb21tZW50cy90aG91Z2h0cy9jb25jZXJu cyBhcmUgYWxzbyBhcHByZWNpYXRlZC4NCg0KDQoNCg0KUmVnYXJkcyENCi1RaW4NCg== --_000_B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA845BACC0nkgeml501mbschi_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi, Folks:=

Sorry for late followup.

We had a good discussion in = RTGWG and OPSAWG meeting.

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings= /90/minutes/minutes-90-rtgwg

Opsawg meeting minutes haven=A1= =AFt been posted yet.

 

People concerned a lot about de= fining one GOAM protocol in the data plane.

There have already had a lot of= work in RTGWG to discuss using Generic TLV

and Header extension to carry O= AM information. Some other effort can be seen in ITU-T.

 

Another concern is if multi-lay= er management plane consolidation will also cause

Crossing layer boundary introdu= ced by inter-layer operation.

 

Based on the discussion in both= RTGWG/OPSAWG meeting and in the corridors,

We feel look into multi-layer O= AM management is good direction and complimentary

to what has been done in RTG ar= ea regarding data plane OAM(e.g.,Overlay OAM).

 

To address concern raised in th= e meeting, we propose to focus on management plane consolidation and

use layer independent OAM manag= ement to replace transport independent OAM.

 

We believe looking into layer i= ndependent OAM management and stitching different layer OAMs

can provide better OAM visibili= ty.

To achieve this, one possible a= pproach is to apply CFM like model to all the existing OAM technologies, th= en

We can model different various = OAM protocol in the same way.

The problem statement draft and= use case draft will be updated soon.

 

The mailing list will be update= d as well. We have sent a request to AD.

 

Regards!

-Qin

&n= bsp;

&n= bsp;

=B7=A2=BC=FE=C8=CB: Time [mailto:time-bounces@ietf.org] =B4=FA=B1=ED = Qin Wu
=B7=A2=CB=CD= =CA=B1=BC=E4: 2014=C4=EA7=D4=C2<= span lang=3D"EN-US">23=C8=D5 18:55
=CA=D5=BC=FE=C8=CB: time@ietf.org
=D6=F7=CC=E2: [Time] TIME proposal in OPS-Area meeting and RTGWG meeting

 

Hi, folks:

Just want to remind we have two= presentations on TIME Proposal in opsawg meeting and rtgwg meeting.

0900-1130  Morning Session= I

Ontario    = OPS            &nbs= p;       opsawg     = Operations and Management Area Working Group WG - Combined with OPSAREA

1520-1650  Afternoon Sessi= on II

 

Ballroom    = ;      RTG         r= tgwg            &nbs= p;    Routing Area Working Group WG

 

If you want to know the latest = progress and status of TIME proposal, please join us.

Your comments/thoughts/concerns= are also appreciated.

 

Regards!

-Qin

--_000_B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA845BACC0nkgeml501mbschi_-- From nobody Sun Aug 24 22:14:59 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: time@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: time@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD6FC1A8A16; Sun, 24 Aug 2014 22:14:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.893 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.893 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_22=0.6, LOCALPART_IN_SUBJECT=1.107, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FcHkN6Hy9UV1; Sun, 24 Aug 2014 22:14:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usevmg20.ericsson.net (usevmg20.ericsson.net [198.24.6.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 341401A8A15; Sun, 24 Aug 2014 22:14:51 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c618062d-f79206d0000014d2-05-53fa71a3aa42 Received: from EUSAAHC002.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.78]) by usevmg20.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 52.D5.05330.3A17AF35; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 01:13:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: from EUSAAMB103.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.120]) by EUSAAHC002.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.78]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 01:14:48 -0400 From: Gregory Mirsky To: "'draft-tissa-netmod-oam@tools.ietf.org'" Thread-Topic: draft-tissa-netmod-oam Thread-Index: Ac+tKouGZjiF/7GjRZGwGunQsgwS9A== Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 05:14:47 +0000 Message-ID: <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B82567E@eusaamb103.ericsson.se> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.11] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B82567Eeusaamb103erics_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrLLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXSPn+6Swl/BBt8a+Sz2bnvJavH42yF2 i1tLV7JazL/YyGrxdL6kxec/2xgtjl/4zWgxb9cHJgcOjyVLfjJ5fLn8mS2AKYrLJiU1J7Ms tUjfLoEr4/yZ1ewFN6oqdrT/YGlg3JTVxcjJISFgIvHgxG0mCFtM4sK99WwgtpDAUUaJX4/0 IezljBJbvumA2GwCRhIvNvawg9giAuESK+7/ALK5OJgFGpkk5j5+BdYsLKAgsfndbxaIIlWJ /Y3/mSFsPYn38w+CxVmA4lc6JoIN4hXwlZjWfAaslxHoiO+n1oAdxCwgLnHryXyo4wQkluw5 zwxhi0q8fPyPFcJWkvj4ez47RH2+xJUdp1kgZgpKnJz5hGUCo/AsJKNmISmbhaQMIq4jsWD3 JzYIW1ti2cLXzDD2mQOPmZDFFzCyr2LkKC1OLctNNzLYxAiMr2MSbLo7GPe8tDzEKMDBqMTD u2D7z2Ah1sSy4srcQ4zSHCxK4ryzaucFCwmkJ5akZqemFqQWxReV5qQWH2Jk4uCUamBk2JL7 oOnR171K7X9yJ/8N3Gi1VcxsvsNGufZ+i3lznpjezzKb6+DSW3XFP3ey28Rp7U0+1e/WlL2N 4t280WCqyoLXKxKfak7dan3F5eXBuX1f37vMrzaasdZdfjHjTTV2Kft/r8yuH+linHP6FN83 HfN7B7o3KpqlB1jWZUQdb45PPTBlUd4aJZbijERDLeai4kQAvcFrVJACAAA= Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/time/UpjrWEi_FPXWculASiYfldyr_HI Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" , "mpls@ietf.org" , "spring@ietf.org" , "time@ietf.org" , "'netmod@ietf.org'" , "nvo3@ietf.org" , "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" Subject: [Time] draft-tissa-netmod-oam X-BeenThere: time@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Transport Independent OAM in Multi-Layer network Entity \(TIME\) discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 05:14:54 -0000 --_000_7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B82567Eeusaamb103erics_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Authors, et.al, please kindly consider my comments and questions to this document: * Introduction o "... it is a reasonable choice to develop the unified OAM framework ba= sed on those (CFM) concepts." I agree that for packet switching connection-= oriented networks that are based on G.800 architecture CFM, but more so Y.1= 731, provides shared concepts. I think that the same cannot be said for con= nectionless packet switching networks. Thus extending CFM model onto arbitr= ary networks without consideration whether these are connection-oriented or= connectionless is very questionable approach, IMO; o "...CFM, it is a reasonable choice to develop the unified OAM framework= based on those concepts" IP OAM is not based on Ethernet Service OAM model= or principles but, IMO, OAM of overlay networks more closer resemble IP OA= M as these networks are connectionless in their architecture; o "The YANG model presented in this document is the base model and suppor= ts IP Ping and Traceroute." If only these and similar OAM tools, e.g. LSP p= ing, Loopback/Linktrace, are in scope of the document, then, I believe, the= title may say something like "YANG model of on-demand OAM tool to detect a= nd localize Loss of Continuity defect". Referring to ping/traceroute as "ge= neric OAM" comes as stretch too far; o "...initiate a performance monitoring session can do so in the same ma= nner regardless of the underlying protocol or technology" I'd point to work= of LMAP WG on informational model of performance measurements in large-sca= le access networks, work of ITU-T's SG15, MEF. Perhaps sentence can be stop= ped after "... or a Traceroute". o "In this document we define the YANG model for Generic OAM" Can you pro= vide definition or reference to the definition of the "Generic OAM"? It is = challenging to validate informational model of something that not been suff= iciently defined. * Section 3 o "This allows users to traverse between OAM of different technologies at= ease through a uniform API set." Usually relationships between OAM layers = referred and viewed as OAM interworking. There are several examples of IETF= addressing aspects of OAM interworking. I think that interworking includes= not only scenarios of nested OAM layers but peering layers and thus is bro= ader than introduced in the document "nested OAM". o Figure 1 depicts OAM of both connection-oriented and connectionless net= works. What you see common, generic in respective OAM of these networks? * Section 4 o "In IP, the MA can be per IP Subnet ..." As there's no definition of MA= in IP, is this the definition or one of examples. Can MA in IP network be = other than per IP Subnet? o "Under each MA, there can be two or more MEPs (Maintenance End Points)"= Firstly, since you adopt MA-centric terminology, MEP stands for Maintenanc= e Association End Point. Secondly, in some OAM models Down and Up MEP being= distinguished. Would your model consider that? As there's no definition of= MEP for several networks you've listed, e.g. IP, how the YANG model will a= bstract something that is not defined? And thirdly, how and where MIPs are = located in IP OAM? Thank you for your consideration of my notes and looking forward to the int= eresting discussion. Regards, Greg --_000_7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B82567Eeusaamb103erics_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear Authors, et.al,

please kindly consider my comments and questions to = this document:

·         Introduction

o    “… it is a reasonable choi= ce to develop the unified OAM framework based on those (CFM) concepts.̶= 1; I agree that for packet switching connection-oriented networks that are = based on G.800 architecture CFM, but more so Y.1731, provides shared concepts. I think that the same cannot be said for connectionless p= acket switching networks. Thus extending CFM model onto arbitrary networks = without consideration whether these are connection-oriented or connectionle= ss is very questionable approach, IMO;

o   “…CFM, it is a reasonable choice= to develop the unified OAM framework based on those concepts” IP OAM= is not based on Ethernet Service OAM model or principles but, IMO, OAM of = overlay networks more closer resemble IP OAM as these networks are connectionless in their architecture;

o   “The YANG model presented in this docu= ment is the base model and supports IP Ping and Traceroute.” If only = these and similar OAM tools, e.g. LSP ping, Loopback/Linktrace, are in scop= e of the document, then, I believe, the title may say something like “YANG model of on-demand OAM tool to detect a= nd localize Loss of Continuity defect”. Referring to ping/traceroute = as “generic OAM” comes as stretch too far;

o    “…initiate a performance m= onitoring session can do so in the same manner regardless of the underlying= protocol or technology” I’d point to work of LMAP WG on inform= ational model of performance measurements in large-scale access networks, work of ITU-T’s SG15, MEF. Perhaps sentence can be stopped= after “… or a Traceroute”.

o   “In this document we define the YANG m= odel for Generic OAM” Can you provide definition or reference to the = definition of the “Generic OAM”? It is challenging to validate = informational model of something that not been sufficiently defined.

·         Section 3

o   “This allows users to traverse between= OAM of different technologies at ease through a uniform API set.” Us= ually relationships between OAM layers referred and viewed as OAM interwork= ing. There are several examples of IETF addressing aspects of OAM interworking. I think that interworking includes not only s= cenarios of nested OAM layers but peering layers and thus is broader than i= ntroduced in the document “nested OAM”.

o   Figure 1 depicts OAM of both connection-orie= nted and connectionless networks. What you see common, generic in respectiv= e OAM of these networks?

·         Section 4

o   “In IP, the MA can be per IP Subnet &#= 8230;” As there’s no definition of MA in IP, is this the defini= tion or one of examples. Can MA in IP network be other than per IP Subnet?<= o:p>

o   “Under each MA, there can be two or mo= re MEPs (Maintenance End Points)” Firstly, since you adopt MA-centric= terminology, MEP stands for Maintenance Association End Point. Secondly, i= n some OAM models Down and Up MEP being distinguished. Would your model consider that? As there’s no definition of MEP for = several networks you’ve listed, e.g. IP, how the YANG model will abst= ract something that is not defined? And thirdly, how and where MIPs are loc= ated in IP OAM?

 

Thank you for your consideration of my notes and loo= king forward to the interesting discussion.

 

Regards,

    =     Greg

--_000_7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B82567Eeusaamb103erics_-- From nobody Thu Aug 28 18:48:08 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: time@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: time@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2D9C1A030A; Thu, 28 Aug 2014 08:24:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -13.168 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-13.168 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_22=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BDtdGBpeqD9G; Thu, 28 Aug 2014 08:24:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C96D1A06FC; Thu, 28 Aug 2014 08:24:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=29477; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1409239473; x=1410449073; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=UUaWlJnTkIdT2jpeN2ooo6VAdPLfWpG3/ZUrZmZ7C7o=; b=haYGHHnGj4B1Y2Tx04CiPsMf2sKsQxzuhGAmkkvXrElFO6Ra94bOS4kG Ixc5ncHRZAYdoLggiZwDsm7CGKbmDBFuh2tpXZUkyqR0ctCz4DaFZjEsQ SlLkPv3Szn64ip29nnzxCJdyT1A+W37xaLUC3Jhge7MjN4QaQQTvbgU1G 0=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ag0FACFJ/1OtJV2R/2dsb2JhbABbgkdGU1cE03YBgRkWd4QDAQEBBC05DAcQAgEIEQEDAQELFgcHMhQDBggBAQQBDQUIE4gnv0oXjnQnMQYBgy+BHQWRL6BIg15sgQYCHgYcgQcBAQE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,418,1406592000"; d="scan'208,217";a="351062464" Received: from rcdn-core-9.cisco.com ([173.37.93.145]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Aug 2014 15:24:15 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com [173.37.183.84]) by rcdn-core-9.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s7SFOF8Q007812 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 28 Aug 2014 15:24:15 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x08.cisco.com ([169.254.8.110]) by xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([173.37.183.84]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Thu, 28 Aug 2014 10:24:15 -0500 From: "Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)" To: Gregory Mirsky , "'draft-tissa-netmod-oam@tools.ietf.org'" Thread-Topic: draft-tissa-netmod-oam Thread-Index: Ac+tKouGZjiF/7GjRZGwGunQsgwS9AVplJ1w Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 15:24:14 +0000 Message-ID: References: <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B82567E@eusaamb103.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B82567E@eusaamb103.ericsson.se> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.89.14.1] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_FBEA3E19AA24F847BA3AE74E2FE193562EF118C6xmbrcdx08ciscoc_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/time/DZ4f2s12Zvhy_jWGYdjxfspRxwM X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 18:48:06 -0700 Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" , "mpls@ietf.org" , "spring@ietf.org" , "time@ietf.org" , "'netmod@ietf.org'" , "nvo3@ietf.org" , "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Time] draft-tissa-netmod-oam X-BeenThere: time@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Transport Independent OAM in Multi-Layer network Entity \(TIME\) discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 15:24:39 -0000 --_000_FBEA3E19AA24F847BA3AE74E2FE193562EF118C6xmbrcdx08ciscoc_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Greg Before answering the specific questions below, would like explain few aspe= cts related to the extended CFM model used here. CFM originally was design= ed exclusively for Ethernet. As part of the TRILL OAM work we decoupled CFM= model from Ethernet based addressing and made it addressing independent. T= hat is the CFM model that is referred here. CFM defines a complete fault model that include fault domains, Test point, = Layering etc. Strict definition of such is needed to develop a complete OAM= solution regardless of the underline technology. CFM does a fantastic job = in accomplishing that and AFIK there is no other model. We are leveraging t= hat model. The word generic OAM is utilized here to indicate that the model can be app= lied regardless of the underlying technology. YANG model is not a one-one copy of CFM YANG defined in MEF. Rather it is d= efined with address independent and extensibility in mind. With the above in mind, specific answers in-line: From: L2vpn [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Gregory Mirsky Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2014 10:15 PM To: 'draft-tissa-netmod-oam@tools.ietf.org' Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org; mpls@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; time@ietf.org; 'netmod@= ietf.org'; nvo3@ietf.org; rtg-bfd@ietf.org Subject: draft-tissa-netmod-oam Dear Authors, et.al, please kindly consider my comments and questions to this document: * Introduction o "... it is a reasonable choice to develop the unified OAM framework ba= sed on those (CFM) concepts." I agree that for packet switching connection-= oriented networks that are based on G.800 architecture CFM, but more so Y.1= 731, provides shared concepts. I think that the same cannot be said for con= nectionless packet switching networks. Thus extending CFM model onto arbitr= ary networks without consideration whether these are connection-oriented or= connectionless is very questionable approach, IMO; [Answer] As stated above it is the OAM Model that is leveraged here. Regard= less of connection oriented or not the model on Fault domains, Test points = etc is valid. In theory connection oriented can be broken in to connection establishment = and data forwarding. With that in mind, one can define Fault domain and tes= t points. Followed by definition of the Fault identifications tools accordi= ngly. Do you have a preferred OAM tool for fault verification/isolation and loss= and performance monitoring for connection oriented connectuons ?. If so wo= uld like to review and map to the model. o "...CFM, it is a reasonable choice to develop the unified OAM framework= based on those concepts" IP OAM is not based on Ethernet Service OAM model= or principles but, IMO, OAM of overlay networks more closer resemble IP OA= M as these networks are connectionless in their architecture; [Answer] Please see the answer above and extended CFM model. It is the mod= el that is presented here, regardless of the connectioness, OAM tools need= fault domains and fault boundaries. Addidtionally as stated in the explana= tion above, there is nothing Ethernet in CFM, once the addressing is decoup= led. o "The YANG model presented in this document is the base model and suppor= ts IP Ping and Traceroute." If only these and similar OAM tools, e.g. LSP p= ing, Loopback/Linktrace, are in scope of the document, then, I believe, the= title may say something like "YANG model of on-demand OAM tool to detect a= nd localize Loss of Continuity defect". Referring to ping/traceroute as "ge= neric OAM" comes as stretch too far; [Answer] I think there is a miss understanding this model is not limited to= Ping and Trace route. Ping and traceroute are only examples to get the wor= k stared and discussion going. As we go along other tools will be mapped to= the model. o "...initiate a performance monitoring session can do so in the same ma= nner regardless of the underlying protocol or technology" I'd point to work= of LMAP WG on informational model of performance measurements in large-sca= le access networks, work of ITU-T's SG15, MEF. Perhaps sentence can be stop= ped after "... or a Traceroute". [Answer] I did not fully understand your point. o "In this document we define the YANG model for Generic OAM" Can you pro= vide definition or reference to the definition of the "Generic OAM"? It is = challenging to validate informational model of something that not been suff= iciently defined. [Answer] As explained earlier terminology generic OAM is used to indicate = that the presented OAM model can be applied independent of the underlying t= echnology. In section 1, we have stated the following: "..In this document,= we take the [8021Q] CFM model and extend it to a technology independent fr= amework and build the corresponding YANG model accordingly. The YANG model = presented in this document is the base model and supports IP Ping and Trace= route. The generic OAM YANG model is designed such that it can be extended = to cover various technologies. Technology dependent nodes and RPC commands = are defined in technology specific YANG models, which use and extend the ba= se model defined here. .... " * Section 3 o "This allows users to traverse between OAM of different technologies at= ease through a uniform API set." Usually relationships between OAM layers = referred and viewed as OAM interworking. There are several examples of IETF= addressing aspects of OAM interworking. I think that interworking includes= not only scenarios of nested OAM layers but peering layers and thus is bro= ader than introduced in the document "nested OAM". [Answer] Can you please provide some example here, I am not quite clear. Guessing from the word peering, if we are referring to cascaded sections of= different technologies such as IP Cloud, MPLS cloud and another IP cloud. = Then the model presented here is the answer. You can have an end end OAM se= ssion at a higher MD-Level. Each of the clouds below can have separate OAM = at a lower MD-Level. These can be utilized for fault isolation. o Figure 1 depicts OAM of both connection-oriented and connectionless net= works. What you see common, generic in respective OAM of these networks? [Answer] Please see the answers above. * Section 4 o "In IP, the MA can be per IP Subnet ..." As there's no definition of MA= in IP, is this the definition or one of examples. Can MA in IP network be = other than per IP Subnet? [Answer] It is ".. can be", so it meant to be an example and other possibil= ities are not ruled out and model does not assume any such limitation. o "Under each MA, there can be two or more MEPs (Maintenance End Points)"= Firstly, since you adopt MA-centric terminology, MEP stands for Maintenanc= e Association End Point. Secondly, in some OAM models Down and Up MEP being= distinguished. Would your model consider that? As there's no definition of= MEP for several networks you've listed, e.g. IP, how the YANG model will a= bstract something that is not defined? And thirdly, how and where MIPs are = located in IP OAM? [Answer] Yes model accept both UP/Down. One cannot say for IP there is no MEP. MEP is a functional abstraction of a= test point that generate and respond to OAM messages. In that regard IP de= vices today have an implicit MEP at the CPU. The model allow to provide mor= e semantics to the MEP and allow to create UP/Down per interface or other s= cope, hence providing more granularity in fault isolation/verification and = monitoring. Thank you for your consideration of my notes and looking forward to the int= eresting discussion. Thank you for spending time to review and comment. We are updating the next= version with comments received so far and specifically during IETF in Cana= da. We are more than happy enhance where applicable or need more clarity. Regards, Greg --_000_FBEA3E19AA24F847BA3AE74E2FE193562EF118C6xmbrcdx08ciscoc_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Greg=

 

Before answering the s= pecific questions below,  would like explain few aspects related to th= e extended CFM model used here. CFM  originally was designed exclusive= ly for Ethernet. As part of the TRILL OAM work we decoupled CFM model from Ethernet based addressing and made it addressi= ng independent. That is the CFM model that is referred here.

 

CFM defines a complete= fault model that include fault domains, Test point, Layering etc. Strict d= efinition of such is needed to develop a complete OAM solution regardless o= f the underline technology. CFM does a fantastic job in accomplishing that and AFIK there is no other model. We= are leveraging that model.

 

The word generic OAM i= s utilized here to indicate that the model can be applied regardless of the= underlying technology.

 

YANG model is not a on= e-one copy of CFM YANG defined in MEF. Rather it is defined with address in= dependent and extensibility in mind.

 

With the above in mind= , specific answers in-line:

 

From: L2vpn [m= ailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Gregory Mirsky
Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2014 10:15 PM
To: 'draft-tissa-netmod-oam@tools.ietf.org'
Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org; mpls@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; time@ietf.org; '= netmod@ietf.org'; nvo3@ietf.org; rtg-bfd@ietf.org
Subject: draft-tissa-netmod-oam

 

Dear Authors, et.al,

please kindly consider my comments and questions to = this document:

·         Introduction

o    “… it is a reasonable choi= ce to develop the unified OAM framework based on those (CFM) concepts.̶= 1; I agree that for packet switching connection-oriented networks that are = based on G.800 architecture CFM, but more so Y.1731, provides shared concepts. I think that the same cannot be said for connectionless p= acket switching networks. Thus extending CFM model onto arbitrary networks = without consideration whether these are connection-oriented or connectionle= ss is very questionable approach, IMO;

 

 

[Answer] As stated abo= ve it is the OAM Model that is leveraged here. Regardless of connection ori= ented or not the model on Fault domains, Test points etc is valid.

 

In theory connection o= riented can be broken in to connection establishment and data forwarding. W= ith that in mind, one can define Fault domain and test points. Followed by = definition of the Fault identifications tools accordingly.

 

Do you have a preferre= d OAM tool  for fault verification/isolation and loss and performance = monitoring for connection oriented connectuons ?. If so would like to revie= w and map to the model.

 

 

o   “…CFM, it is a reasonable choice= to develop the unified OAM framework based on those concepts” IP OAM= is not based on Ethernet Service OAM model or principles but, IMO, OAM of = overlay networks more closer resemble IP OAM as these networks are connectionless in their architecture;

 

[Answer]  Please = see the answer above and extended CFM model. It is the model that is presen= ted here, regardless of the connectioness,  OAM tools need fault domai= ns and fault boundaries. Addidtionally as stated in the explanation above, there is nothing Ethernet in CFM, once the addre= ssing is decoupled.

 

o   “The YANG model presented in this docu= ment is the base model and supports IP Ping and Traceroute.” If only = these and similar OAM tools, e.g. LSP ping, Loopback/Linktrace, are in scop= e of the document, then, I believe, the title may say something like “YANG model of on-demand OAM tool to detect a= nd localize Loss of Continuity defect”. Referring to ping/traceroute = as “generic OAM” comes as stretch too far;

 

[Answer] I think there= is a miss understanding this model is not limited to Ping and Trace route.= Ping and traceroute are only examples to get the work stared and discussio= n going. As we go along other tools will be mapped to the model.

o    “…initiate a performance m= onitoring session can do so in the same manner regardless of the underlying= protocol or technology” I’d point to work of LMAP WG on inform= ational model of performance measurements in large-scale access networks, work of ITU-T’s SG15, MEF. Perhaps sentence can be stopped= after “… or a Traceroute”.

[Answer] I did not ful= ly understand your point.

 

o   “In this document we define the YANG m= odel for Generic OAM” Can you provide definition or reference to the = definition of the “Generic OAM”? It is challenging to validate = informational model of something that not been sufficiently defined.

 

[Answer]  As expl= ained earlier terminology generic OAM is used to indicate that the presente= d OAM model can be applied independent of the underlying technology. In sec= tion 1, we have stated the following: “..In this document, we take the [8021Q] CFM model and extend it to a technology= independent framework and build the corresponding YANG model accordingly. = The YANG model presented in this document is the base model and supports IP= Ping and Traceroute. The generic OAM YANG model is designed such that it can be extended to cover various t= echnologies. Technology dependent nodes and RPC commands are defined in tec= hnology specific YANG models, which use and extend the base model defined h= ere. …. “

 

 

·         Section 3

o   “This allows users to traverse between= OAM of different technologies at ease through a uniform API set.” Us= ually relationships between OAM layers referred and viewed as OAM interwork= ing. There are several examples of IETF addressing aspects of OAM interworking. I think that interworking includes not only s= cenarios of nested OAM layers but peering layers and thus is broader than i= ntroduced in the document “nested OAM”.

[Answer]  Can you= please provide some example here, I am not quite clear.<= /p>

 

Guessing from the word= peering, if we are referring to cascaded sections of different technologie= s such as IP Cloud, MPLS cloud and another IP cloud. Then the model present= ed here is the answer. You can have an end end OAM session at a higher MD-Level. Each of the clouds below can = have separate OAM at a lower MD-Level. These can be utilized for fault isol= ation.

 

o   Figure 1 depicts OAM of both connection-orie= nted and connectionless networks. What you see common, generic in respectiv= e OAM of these networks?

 

[Answer] Please see th= e answers above.

 

·         Section 4

o   “In IP, the MA can be per IP Subnet &#= 8230;” As there’s no definition of MA in IP, is this the defini= tion or one of examples. Can MA in IP network be other than per IP Subnet?<= o:p>

[Answer] It is “= .. can be”, so it meant to be an example and other possibilities are = not ruled out and model does not assume any such limitation.

 

o   “Under each MA, there can be two or mo= re MEPs (Maintenance End Points)” Firstly, since you adopt MA-centric= terminology, MEP stands for Maintenance Association End Point. Secondly, i= n some OAM models Down and Up MEP being distinguished. Would your model consider that? As there’s no definition of MEP for = several networks you’ve listed, e.g. IP, how the YANG model will abst= ract something that is not defined? And thirdly, how and where MIPs are loc= ated in IP OAM?

 

[Answer] Yes model acc= ept both UP/Down.

 

One cannot say for IP = there is no MEP. MEP is a functional abstraction of a test point that gener= ate and respond to OAM messages. In that regard IP devices today have an im= plicit MEP at the CPU. The model allow to provide more semantics to the MEP and allow to create UP/Down per inter= face or other scope, hence providing more granularity in fault isolation/ve= rification and monitoring.

 

Thank you for your consideration of my notes and loo= king forward to the interesting discussion.

 

Thank you for spending= time to review and comment. We are updating the next version with comments= received so far and specifically during IETF in Canada. We are more than h= appy enhance where applicable or need more clarity.

 

Regards,

    =     Greg

--_000_FBEA3E19AA24F847BA3AE74E2FE193562EF118C6xmbrcdx08ciscoc_--