> Dino, > > Would you re-phrase your response? I am having some trouble parsing it, so > I must be missing something. > > First, I think (when you said "... sent from any pair of ports ...") you > meant to > say "... sent with any pair of ports ..." - but this is a guess.
Yes "with" is a better way of stating it. > As for making OAM messages traverse the exact same path as data, this is > what OAM is expected to do. In essence, if data follows a path that involves Good luck. I do not how you will be able to control each ECMP path at each path across different vendors as well as the same vendor with different hashing algorithms. One needs to argue if you really need the granuarlity for the complexity that will needed to get this partially correct. > a non-zero number of gates, while OAM does not, the successful delivery of > OAM is only an approximate indication of the data-path integrity. Any H/W > that data has to go through, and OAM does not go through, could fail and we > would see an OAM indication of a valid path through which data either would > not go, or would be diverted in some unexpected way. Well I think LISP RLOC-probing is good enough, but I am biased. ;-) > Ordinarily, this should not be a problem for the hardware, as (ordinarily) the > OAM is indistinguishable from data. The hardware works no harder to push > OAM than it would to push an equivalent amount of data. If an ITR sends a packet the ETR's address, the middle boxes do not know if it is a control-packet versus a data-packet. > So, what is the problem again? I am trying to avoid problems. Seems like things are being over-engineered. Again. Dino P.S. Sorry I keep being negative. And if one person says shut up, I'll stop posting. > > -- > Eric > > -----Original Message----- > From: nvo3 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dino Farinacci > Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 9:13 PM > To: Larry Kreeger > Cc: Tom Herbert; David Melman; Marc Binderberger; LISP mailing list list; > [email protected] > Subject: Re: [nvo3] Comments on > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-quinn-vxlan-gpe-03 > >> I'm assuming that routers and switches will be multipathing based on >> the UDP port numbers, so I would expect different destination UDP >> ports to take different equal cost paths. > > Well if OAM is going to be effective, messages need to be sent from any pair > of ports that yield 0 through N modulus so multiple paths can be determined. > So it doesn't matter with the port number values you use, those control > packets will be ECMPed as well. > > If you are also inferring that you want the OAM packets to go through the > same data-path of each device on the path, then you will have to put TLVs in > the data path, which is traditionally not prudent. See my Puneet reference > from previous email. > > Dino > > _______________________________________________ > nvo3 mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
