HI Saumya, Please see inline..
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. <Nagendra> Yes, that is the intention. We will clarify it. "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. <Nagendra> MAY statement sounds reasonable. REQ#22 - REQ#25 refer to "per-segment". A "segment" maps to a NVO-tunnel? <Nagendra> Yes, a segment referes to NVO tunnel between NVEs. Multiple such segments may comprise an end-to-end tunnel. Shouldn't there be on a per-VNI basis as well. <Nagendra>I think the granularity should definitely at per-VNI level. >>>>> 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. <Nagendra> I see. We will check this. Thanks for your comments. Regards, Nagendra 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
