Hi Martin,
On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 12:23 PM Martin Duke via Datatracker
<nore...@ietf.org> wrote:
>
> Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk-06: No Objection
>
> ...
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thanks to David Black for the tsvart review, and for the authors
> addressing his comments.
>
> Sec 2.2 It would help to define "up" and "down" connections.
The -06 version of the draft includes the following text which sort of
defines "up" and "down" but I'm not sure it does so clearly or even
completely accurately in this case :-(
The EVPN PE MUST support MIP functions in the applicable service OAM
protocol, for example Ethernet CFM. The EVPN PE SHOULD support MEP
functions in the applicable service OAM protocol. This includes both
Up and Down MEP functions. As shown in Figure 3, the MIP and MEP
functions being referred to are logically located within the CE
facing port of a PE. Down MEP functions are towards the CE. Up MEP
functions are towards the PE forwarding mechanism. CFM between the PE
Up MEPs is a type of EVPN Network OAM while CFM between the CEs or
from a PE to its local CE or to the remote CE is Service OAM.
So how about the following replacement wording:
The EVPN PE MUST support MIP functions in the applicable service OAM
protocol, for example Ethernet CFM. The EVPN PE SHOULD support MEP
functions in the applicable service OAM protocol. This includes both
Up and Down MEP functions.
As shown in Figure 3, the MIP and MEP functions being referred to
are logically located within the device's port operating at the
customer level. (There could be MEPs/MIPs within PE ports facing
the provider network but they would not be relevant to EVPN Service
OAM as the traffic passing through them will be
encapsulated/tunneled so any customer level OAM messages will just
be treated as data.) Down MEP functions are away from the device
while up MEP functions are towards the device (towards the PE
forwarding mechanism in the case of a PE). OAM messages between the
PE Up MEPs are a type of EVPN Network OAM while such messages
between the CEs or from a PE to its local CE or to the remote CE is
Service OAM.
and perhaps adding entries for "Down MEP" and "Up MEP" in the
Terminology section. Also the following adjusted figure 3 might show
more clearly that the MEPs/MIPs are part of the CEs/PEs:
+-------+ +----------------+ +----------------+ +-------+
|+-----+| |+--------------+| |+--------------+| |+-----+|
|| CE || || PE1 || ... || PE2 || || CE ||
|+--+--+| |+---+--------+-+| |+-+--------+---+| |+--+--+|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|+--+--+| |+---+-----+ . | | . +-----+---+| |+--+--+|
|| MEP || || | Up^ | . | ... | . |Up^ | || || MEP ||
||DownV|| ||MIP|MEP | . | | . |MEP |MIP|| ||downV||
|+--+--+| || |DownV| . | | . |DownV| || |+--+--+|
| | | |+---+-----+ | | | | +-----+---+| | | |
+---|---+ +----|--------|--+ +--|--------|----+ +---|---+
| | | | | |
+------------+ +--- ... ---+ +------------+
> Sec 3.2.1 & 3.2.2. I am not sure of the extent which IPPM metrics and methods
> can apply to these layers. But there are some references that can guide loss,
> delay, and jitter measurements:
>
> Loss: RFC 7680, RFC 6673
>
> Delay: RFC 7679, RFC 2681
>
> Jitter: RFC 3393
>
> I encourage the authors to peruse IPPM's published RFCs on datatracker to see
> if other documents would be similarly useful.
Thanks for the references. I do not see any problem in adding these
references for delay and jitter to Section 3.2.2 of the draft and the
references for loss to Section 3.2.1 of the draft.
Thanks,
Donald
===============================
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
d3e...@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
