On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir) <tsene...@cisco.com> wrote: > Greg > > > > I disagree with you on FM and PM cannot be achieved in ECMP environment. > Significant amount of work has gone in to this area during TRILL OAM. > Please check the use of Flow entropy functionality proposed in NVO3 OAM. > > > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tissa-nvo3-oam-fm-00 > Tissa,
If I am reading this correctly, the OAM message would be composed of the encapsulation header, followed by 128 bytes of which contains a pseudo header for switching, followed by a self defining OAM message. The OAM bit is only used at the receiver to distinguish data messages for OAM messages for processing. Is this interpretation correct? Thanks, Tom > > > > > From: nvo3 [mailto:nvo3-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Greg Mirsky > Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 3:03 PM > To: Tapraj Singh > Cc: nvo3@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [nvo3] 答复: Comments on NVO3 data plane requirements for OAM > > > > Hi Tapraj, > > though I agree and support with idea of having OAM flag in NVO3 header I > have to point to: > > absence of WG agreed upon OAM Requirements; > no gap analysis of tools for NVO3 OAM; > OAM flag does not help passive performance measurement marking method (two > bit-long field for marking in fixed position). > > I agree that PW VCCV and GAL/G-ACh can be viewed as MPLS identification of > OAM packet (though not necessarily OAM). But IP clearly doesn't have such > identification for OAM and that, in part, why in-band requirement for IP > OAM, both FM and Active PM, is not attainable (ECMP environment). > > Regards, > > Greg > > > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Tapraj Singh <tsi...@juniper.net> wrote: > > Hi All, > > I totally agree with the point made by Deepak and Tissa here. > Our OAM should follow the data path for services as much as possible and > all > other protocol specific information should be in the OAM protocol specific > TLVs. > > LAYER2 OAM > > In term of identify the OAM packet, first level of identification for L2 > OAM > Should be the MAC address and send level of hierarchy should be the ether > type or OUI. > No other OAM Specific field should be allowed in the packet header. > > Please note that L3 OAM and MPLS also follow the same principle. > > Thanks > Tapraj > > > On 11/17/14 12:39 PM, "Deepak Kumar (dekumar)" <deku...@cisco.com> wrote: > >>I Agree with Tissa below. My Goal also was to point out that instead of >>complicating the header, we can do OAM performance within OAM channel >>itself and this is extensible and can be done in hardware which is why >>mostly things are added in header. >> >>Also, Operators keep asking for new OAM tools (Fault detection, >>verification, isolation, Interworking, alarm, putting service in >>maintenance and perform test) and Performance tools, eg: (Delay/Jitter, >>Actual Loss Measurement, Synthetic Loss, loopback signaling like TDM, >>Generate frames to verify qos etc.) and so OAM Channel solution will be >>extensible. >> >>Thanks, >>Deepak >> >>On 11/17/14 8:47 AM, "Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)" <tsene...@cisco.com> >>wrote: >> >>>I think we are complicating OAM beyond what it is needed. >>> >>>As far as packet encapsulation is concern, all what is needed is single >>>bit. This bit is needed to prevent OAM packets leaking out from the >>>domain. >>> >>>Termination of OAM and processing of it happen based on the addressing in >>>the packet. >>> >>>E.g. if Address matches and OAM bit is set then it is an OAM packet >>>addressed to the local MEP/MP. >>> >>>Not other way around. Why? Because we want OAM to be as closely as >>>possible follow the Data path. >>> >>>If we need to have performance and delay measurements, we SHOULD NOT >>>mutate the packet header. >>> >>>Instead OAM specific extensions should be in the OAM shim. >>> >>>As an example. You could have packet fragment (which is sometimes called >>>flow entropy) and at the end of that you can have all of the stuff you >>>need in the world of OAM. >>> >>>Hope this clarify >>> >>>Thanks >>>Tissa >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: nvo3 [mailto:nvo3-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tom Herbert >>>Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 8:02 AM >>>To: Marc Binderberger >>>Cc: Greg Mirsky; Mach Chen; Deepak Kumar (dekumar); nvo3@ietf.org; >>>Haoweiguo; Larry Kreeger (kreeger); Vero Zheng; Jon Hudson >>>Subject: Re: [nvo3] 答复: Comments on NVO3 data plane requirements for OAM >>> >>>On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 12:01 AM, Marc Binderberger <m...@sniff.de> >>>wrote: >>>> Hello Deepak et al., >>>> >>>> so this sounds like we need more than just a (2nd) bit for delay >>>>measurement. >>>> Seems we need an optional header extension or a TLV to carry all the >>>> information (timestamps, oam Subtype). Sounds definitely more than a >>>> 32/64bit header could carry (*). >>>> >>>> The optional header extension, when done similar to GUE, has a fixed >>>> position. For the TLV this would be an additional requirement. This >>>> would allow for hardware-stamping. >>>> >>>The alternative is to do active delay measurement using request/reply. >>>We should be able to define the requirements so that an OAM message >>>corresponding to a flow which would be routed in exactly the same way as >>>a data message for the flow. Larry mentioned that we might even want to >>>put a "fake" packet header as the first part of the encapsulated payload >>>of an OAM message for instance. >>> >>>> Now if we introduce such an OAM extension header it could as well >>>> carry the "first" bit we discussed for packet loss measurement (?). >>>> >>>> >>>> Regards, Marc >>>> >>>> (*: at least all proposals so far have a base header that fits into >>>> 32/64 bit, plus IP and potential UDP) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 16:44:54 +0000, Deepak Kumar (dekumar) wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> Please see inline +++DK: >>>>> >>>>> On 11/14/14 11:09 AM, "Jon Hudson" <jon.hud...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> One comment in line.... >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Nov 13, 2014, at 11:47 PM, Vero Zheng <vero.zh...@huawei.com> >>>>>>>wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Tom, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please see in-line. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> BR, Vero >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>> From: nvo3 [mailto:nvo3-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tom Herbert >>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 4:27 PM >>>>>>>> To: Mach Chen >>>>>>>> Cc: Greg Mirsky; Haoweiguo; Marc Binderberger; Larry Kreeger; >>>>>>>> nvo3@ietf.org >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [nvo3] 答复: Comments on NVO3 data plane requirements >>>>>>>> for OAM >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 5:13 PM, Mach Chen <mach.c...@huawei.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Hi Tom, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>> From: Tom Herbert [mailto:therb...@google.com] >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 3:11 AM >>>>>>>>>> To: Marc Binderberger >>>>>>>>>> Cc: Mach Chen; Greg Mirsky; Haoweiguo; nvo3@ietf.org; Larry >>>>>>>>>> Kreeger >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [nvo3] 答复: Comments on NVO3 data plane requirements >>>>>>>>>> for OAM >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 2:11 AM, Marc Binderberger >>>>>>>>>> <m...@sniff.de> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Hello Mach, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> so for delay measurement you use the color flag to mark a >>>>>>>>>>> single packet, which helps the receiver to pick the right >>>>>>>>>>> packet? And repeat this every time period T ? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ...000100000010000001000... >>>>>>>>>> Is there there a draft or description of how this algorithm >>>>>>>>>> would work? Seems like there would need to be quite a bot of >>>>>>>>>> synchronization needed between end points (synchronized clocks, >>>>>>>>>> provisions to correlate measurements correctly with lost >>>>>>>>>> packets, replicated packets, etc.). Also, what is envisioned for >>>>>>>>>> range for the period? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Here is a reference >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-ippm-coloring-based-ip >>>>>>>> fpm-fr >>>>>>>> amew >>>>>>>> ork/. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks for the pointer. Regarding the need for synchronized clocks >>>>>>>> to measure delay, I consulted our local NTP expert. The host clock >>>>>>>> jitter we currently see in our network is currently usually >>>>>>>> greater than one-way packet delay (in some cases much greater), so >>>>>>>> in his words: >>>>>>>> "measuring one-way packet delays using host clocks is a lost >>>>>>>>cause". >>>>>>>> Please take this as just one data point! >>>>>> >>>>>> <Jon> Thank you. As someone who has managed NTP more times and for >>>>>> more years than I care to admit, this is a very good datapoint to >>>>>>consider. >>>>>> NTP helps many understand that time is relative. >>>>> >>>>> +++DK: As per our experience in carrier Ethernet we supported one way >>>>> delay and never found NTP useful even for our lab networks (I am >>>>> referring software based NTP NTPv3). >>>>> As mentioned below IEEE 1588v2 will vary based on equipment and >>>>> operator networks but in our testing we found it very precise if >>>>>properly deployed. >>>>> IEEE 1588v2 is very precise if phy based timestamping is used. Even >>>>> timestamping at NP level provided great results for one way delay. >>>>> >>>>> If we want to accurately measure two way delay we need 4 timestamp >>>>> total on receiver of frame (this is to avoid processing time that's >>>>> taken for reply by software as hardware can put timestamp at lower >>>>> layer without doing delay and jitter calculation). >>>>> For one way delay we will require 2 timestamp, so lower layer >>>>> hardware can timestamp before packet is punted to software. >>>>> >>>>> As mentioned below I agree 8 byte IEEE 1588 timestamp is required. >>>>> >>>>> We should also look for Synthetic OAM applicability for performance >>>>>('O' >>>>> bit can be overloaded to do both Fault and performance if OAM is >>>>> defined with different oam Subtype for Delay and Loss frames and it >>>>> will not be too deep hardware inspection) as that give large >>>>> flexibility (synthetic/real loss measurement, >>>>> Availability/unavailability, on-demand and pro-active performance) and >>>>>can be run on all flows of ECMP. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Deepak >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [Vero] Thanks for this. What about the current experience with >>>>>>> 1588v2 then? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes, it does need some synchronization. As for the range, it >>>>>>>>> depends on two >>>>>>>> factors, one is the implementation limitation, the other the >>>>>>>> requirement of the operators. In the above reference, the >>>>>>>> suggested periods are 1s, 10s, 1min, 10min and 1h. >>>>>>>> I think if we were implementing delay measurement in GUE, I would >>>>>>>> advocate add a 64 bit optional field for timestamp, probably >>>>>>>> containing source time stamp, and echoed timestamp for a flow >>>>>>>> (usec resolution and similar in design TCP timestamp option). This >>>>>>>> easily gives a precise RTT, and if clocks are precisely >>>>>>>> synchronized then one way latency could be calculated also. >>>>>>> [Vero] If the source timestamp could be carried, it could also be >>>>>>> used for packet loss calculation/correlation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>> Tom >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>> Mach >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>> Tom >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> One question I still have is: why is the measurement done in >>>>>>>>>>> the NVE >>>>>>>> header? >>>>>>>>>>> The outer header is IP/IPv6, so couldn't we use the coloring >>>>>>>>>>> for the >>>>>>>>>>> IP/IPv6 header, assuming this is defined? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks & Regards, >>>>>>>>>>> Marc >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 12 Nov 2014 09:34:52 +0000, Mach Chen wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Tom, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Tom Herbert [mailto:therb...@google.com] >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 5:06 PM >>>>>>>>>>>>> To: Mach Chen >>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Greg Mirsky; Haoweiguo; nvo3@ietf.org; Larry Kreeger >>>>>>>>>>>>> (kreeger) >>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [nvo3] 答复: Comments on NVO3 data plane >>>>>>>>>>>>> requirements for OAM >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 12:55 AM, Mach Chen >>>>>>>>>>>>> <mach.c...@huawei.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Greg and all, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Single bit is not sufficient if someone wants to perform >>>>>>>>>>>>>> loss and delay measurement simultaneously, then two bits >>>>>>>>>>>>>>needed. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Is that necessary? Can they share the same time quantum (as >>>>>>>>>>>>> well as other metrics maybe to be added later)? In all the >>>>>>>>>>>>> protocols mentioned, the reserved bits are a somewhat precious >>>>>>>>>>>>>resource. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it's necessary if there is ECMP. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Given one bit is used for both loss and delay measurement, for >>>>>>>>>>>> loss measurement, it periodically set and clear the marking >>>>>>>>>>>> bit, a flow is divided into consecutive blocks, and then the >>>>>>>>>>>> counting and calculating are based on each block. This is fine >>>>>>>>>>>> for loss measurement. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> For delay measurement, it has to make sure the timestamps >>>>>>>>>>>> (collected at sender and receiver) are for the same packet. >>>>>>>>>>>> Presumably, the time when changing the marking bit is right >>>>>>>>>>>> time to get >>>>>>>> the timestamps. >>>>>>>>>>>> Since there is ECMP, the first packet of a block at the sender >>>>>>>>>>>> may probably different from the first packet at the receiver, >>>>>>>>>>>> thus it will get the mismatched timestamps to calculate the >>>>>>>>>>>>delay. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>>>>> Mach >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mach >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: nvo3 [mailto:nvo3-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Greg >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mirsky >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 8:05 AM >>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: Haoweiguo >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: nvo3@ietf.org; Larry Kreeger (kreeger) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [nvo3] 答复: Comments on NVO3 data plane >>>>>>>> requirements >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for OAM >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <haowei...@huawei.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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) [kree...@cisco.com] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 发送时间: 2014年11月12日 4:33 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 收件人: Haoweiguo; Greg Mirsky >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 抄送: nvo3@ietf.org >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <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 >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
