On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 12:33 PM, Larry Kreeger (kreeger) <kree...@cisco.com> wrote: > Hi Weiguo, > > What do you envision this marking looking like? e.g. is it just a single > flag bit, or large field with a counter or sequence number, or some kind of > flow ID? If not a single flag, how large do you see the field being? > > If it is more than a flag (and I assume it would be), and is not mandatory > for all implementations, then it seems to fall into the category of optional > extensions. > I assume this is a request for in-band measurement as opposed to some out of band summary mechanism which seems to be more typical of OAM. If we are adding loss counters/delay metrics to every data packet, this is starting to look like the sort of data we meed for congestion control and in fact might be a subset of that.
Tom > Thanks, Larry > > From: Haoweiguo <haowei...@huawei.com> > Date: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 10:18 AM > To: Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com> > Cc: "nvo3@ietf.org" <nvo3@ietf.org> > Subject: [nvo3] 答复: Comments on NVO3 data plane requirements for OAM > > Hi Greg, > > I fully agree with you. > > The real time OAM is passive performance measurement methods. I would like > NVO3 data encapsulation has a field for marking and not affect forwarding of > packets, the marking field is only used for performance measurement. The > NVO3 packet with this marking flag don't need to be sent to control plane, > it is different from OAM(ping/Trace) packet processing. > > Thanks > > weiguo > > ________________________________ > 发件人: Greg Mirsky [gregimir...@gmail.com] > 发送时间: 2014年11月12日 4:07 > 收件人: Haoweiguo > 抄送: nvo3@ietf.org > 主题: Re: [nvo3] Comments on NVO3 data plane requirements for OAM > > Hi Weiguo, > marking groups of packets that belong to the particular flow to facilitate > measurement of some performance metric, whether loss or delay/delay > variation, may be viewed as one of passive performance measurement methods. > But such marking should not alter, at least not significantly alter, > treatment of data flow in the network. Because of that, I believe, OAM flag > should not be used for marking as that will force punting marked packets > from fast forwarding path to the control plane. But it might be good to have > a field in NVO3 header that may be used for marking and not affect > forwarding of packets if altered. > > Regards, > Greg > > On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 12:34 AM, Haoweiguo <haowei...@huawei.com> wrote: >> >> Hi All, >> >> I maybe not clearly said in today’s NVO3 meeting, pls allow me to >> reiterate the OAM data plane requirements on the mail list. >> >> Currently NVO3 data plane encapsulation only includes one OAM flag, it is >> used for Ping/Trace similar applications. This kind of OAM application is >> initiated by operators for network connectivity verification, normally when >> network failure occurs. There is another OAM requirements of real time OAM >> or synthesizing OAM. It can be used for packet loss detection in real time. >> When ingress NVE receives traffic from local TS, it gets packet statistics, >> and mark(coloring) the OAM flag relying on local policy when it performs >> NVO3 encapsulation. When egress NVEs receives the traffic, it decapsulates >> NVO3 encapsulation, and gets packet statistics with the real time OAM flag >> marking. By comparing the packet number of ingress NVE and the sum of all >> egress NVEs, packet loss can be deduced. This method can be applicable for >> both unicast and multicast traffic. Local policy on ingress NVE is >> configured by operators or automatically acquired from centralized >> orchestration. >> >> Thanks >> >> weiguo >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> nvo3 mailing list >> nvo3@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 >> > > > _______________________________________________ > nvo3 mailing list > nvo3@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 > _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list nvo3@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
