Hi Tissa, I think you're misunderstanding or misinterpreting my POV. I'm not saying that either FM or PM cannot be performed in IP ECMP environment. But I believe that IP OAM has certain limitations like in case of in-band requirement. Of course, if one uses tunnels in server layer and maps flows into tunnels at the edge, then in-band comes for free. Another example that comes to mind is use of MPLS Entropy label. But I think that such are not the most generic scenarios for IP network.
Regards, Greg On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir) < [email protected]> 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 > > > > > > *From:* nvo3 [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Greg Mirsky > *Sent:* Tuesday, November 18, 2014 3:03 PM > *To:* Tapraj Singh > *Cc:* [email protected] > *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 <[email protected]> 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)" <[email protected]> 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)" <[email protected]> > >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:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tom Herbert > >>Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 8:02 AM > >>To: Marc Binderberger > >>Cc: Greg Mirsky; Mach Chen; Deepak Kumar (dekumar); [email protected]; > >>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 <[email protected]> > >>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" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> One comment in line.... > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Nov 13, 2014, at 11:47 PM, Vero Zheng <[email protected]> > >>>>>>wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hi Tom, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Please see in-line. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> BR, Vero > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>>> From: nvo3 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tom Herbert > >>>>>>> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 4:27 PM > >>>>>>> To: Mach Chen > >>>>>>> Cc: Greg Mirsky; Haoweiguo; Marc Binderberger; Larry Kreeger; > >>>>>>> [email protected] > >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [nvo3] 答复: Comments on NVO3 data plane requirements > >>>>>>> for OAM > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 5:13 PM, Mach Chen <[email protected]> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> Hi Tom, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>>>>> From: Tom Herbert [mailto:[email protected]] > >>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 3:11 AM > >>>>>>>>> To: Marc Binderberger > >>>>>>>>> Cc: Mach Chen; Greg Mirsky; Haoweiguo; [email protected]; 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 > >>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> > >>>>>>> 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:[email protected]] > >>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 5:06 PM > >>>>>>>>>>>> To: Mach Chen > >>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Greg Mirsky; Haoweiguo; [email protected]; 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 > >>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 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:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Greg > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Mirsky > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 8:05 AM > >>>>>>>>>>>>> To: Haoweiguo > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: [email protected]; 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 > >>>>>>>>>>>>> <[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 > >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>>>>>> nvo3 mailing list > >>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] > >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 > >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>>> nvo3 mailing list > >>>>>>>> [email protected] > >>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>> nvo3 mailing list > >>>>>>> [email protected] > >>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 > >>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>> nvo3 mailing list > >>>>>> [email protected] > >>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> nvo3 mailing list > >>>> [email protected] > >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 > >> > >>_______________________________________________ > >>nvo3 mailing list > >>[email protected] > >>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 > > > >_______________________________________________ > >nvo3 mailing list > >[email protected] > >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 > > >
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
