Hi Greg,
I have following queries on Overlay OAM
Requirements<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-ooam-requirement-00>:
>>>>> REQ#6: Overlay OAM packets SHOULD be fate sharing with data traffic,
i.e. in-band with the monitored traffic, i.e. follow exactly
the same path as data plane traffic, in forward direction,
i.e. from ingress toward egress end point(s) of the OAM test
session.
"Exactly same path", should be made explicit if it's referring to the underlay
transport path.
"OAM packets SHOULD be fate sharing with data traffic" will not apply to
"REQ#3: centralized controller".
I think "SHOULD" should be treated as a "MUST" if the reference is within the
document :)
>>>>> REQ#11: Overlay OAM MUST support fault localization of Loss of
Continuity check.
Does the "localization" maps to overlay node/link context ? Can we have a "MAY"
requirement for mapping
it to underlay. Since in datacenter, with more of east-west traffic, there
might be deployment requirement
to narrow down to underlay for a speedier fault management.
REQ#22 - REQ#25 refer to "per-segment".
A "segment" maps to a NVO-tunnel? Shouldn't there be on a per-VNI basis as
well.
>>>>> REQ#7: Overlay OAM MUST support bi-directional OAM methods. Such
OAM methods MAY combine in-band monitoring or measurement in
forward direction and out-of-band notification in the
reverse direction, i.e. from egress to ingress end point of
the OAM test session.
In case of optical deployments like, fiber management (both request and
response) can be out-of-band, hence may
need a mention here.
Thanks
Saumya
From: nvo3 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of
Gregory Mirsky <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 1:39 AM
To: "BIER ([email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>)"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>,
"[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>,
"[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: [nvo3] Comments to OOAM Requirements draft from Ron Bonica
Dear All,
Ron reviewed the Overlay OAM
Requirements<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-ooam-requirement-00>
draft and shared his comments under RB> tag. The attached copy has my
responses in under GIM> tag as well. We invite members of BIER, NVO3, SCC and
RTG WGs to join in the discussion. Appreciate you review, comments on OOAM
Requirements draft and OAM for Overlay Networks: Gap Analysis.
Regards,
Greg
_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
