Dear All,
agree with Weiguo, single bit flag in fixed position would be sufficient
and HW-friendly.

Regards,
Greg

On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 3:51 PM, Haoweiguo <[email protected]> wrote:

>  Hi Larry,
>
> For marking purpose, i think one bit maybe OK, fixed fields in NVO3 header
> is precious. I would like it is set in fixed field, rather than in option
> field. Because chipset normally can't process optional field, it is hard to
> realize in-band performance measurement if using optional field for
> marking. For other real time congestion control function, maybe more bits
> are needed.
>
> Thanks
>
> weiguo
>  ------------------------------
> *发件人:* Larry Kreeger (kreeger) [[email protected]]
> *发送时间:* 2014年11月12日 4:33
> *收件人:* Haoweiguo; Greg Mirsky
>
> *抄送:* [email protected]
> *主题:* Re: [nvo3] Comments on NVO3 data plane requirements for OAM
>
>   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.
>
>  Thanks, Larry
>
>   From: Haoweiguo <[email protected]>
> Date: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 10:18 AM
> To: Greg Mirsky <[email protected]>
> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> 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 [[email protected]]
> *发送时间:* 2014年11月12日 4:07
> *收件人:* Haoweiguo
> *抄送:* [email protected]
> *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 <[email protected]> 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
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
>>
>>
>
_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3

Reply via email to