Hello Authors, Please do know your views on having these requirements as part of the document, as deepak also mentioned in the below format.
Thanks Saumya. From: rtgwg <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of sadikshi <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Friday, July 22, 2016 at 12:44 AM To: "Deepak Kumar (dekumar)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "Nagendra Kumar Nainar (naikumar)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Gregory Mirsky <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "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: Re: [Rtg-ooam-dt] [nvo3] [Bier] Comments to OOAM Requirements draft from Ron Bonica Thanks Deepak. I think we should also new define TLVs in draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-ooam-header or any alternative publication addressing the requirement. From: "Deepak Kumar (dekumar)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Friday, July 22, 2016 at 12:07 AM To: sadikshi <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "Nagendra Kumar Nainar (naikumar)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Gregory Mirsky <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "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: Re: [Rtg-ooam-dt] [nvo3] [Bier] Comments to OOAM Requirements draft from Ron Bonica Hi, Below requirement looks like deal with ability of OAM to be extensible. We should add requirement regarding Extensibility for OAM protocol without adding details of VNI, etc. Thanks, Deepak From: Rtg-ooam-dt <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of "Saumya Dikshit (sadikshi)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 6:03 AM To: "Saumya Dikshit (sadikshi)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "Nagendra Kumar Nainar (naikumar)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Gregory Mirsky <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "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: Re: [Rtg-ooam-dt] [nvo3] [Bier] Comments to OOAM Requirements draft from Ron Bonica Hi Greg, Authors of ooam-dt set of drafts Other than current requirements, it will be great to explicitly support the OAM PDU semantics. * apply OAM function_set to group of VNI or band of VNI’s and this information carried in same OAM PDU. Although the response can be discrete on a per VNI basis based on how and where the response is triggered from. If It’s proxy from remote NVE, then the response can be a replication to the request. This is will reduce the number of probes which need to be send to perform the OAM functions. * It will be great to designate VNI’s as L2 or L3 and apply function_Set to them. This is implicitly derived in data-path, but for OAM PDUs, it will help to make it explicit either via using some flags or some other semantics. Hence we can carry bunch of L2 and L3 vnis with corresponding function-set In case these are valid requirements, which I feel they are. Can they find a place in existing document. I can also come out with a peripheral draft defining these. Thanks Saumya. From: nvo3 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of sadikshi <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Monday, July 4, 2016 at 8:09 PM To: "Nagendra Kumar Nainar (naikumar)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Gregory Mirsky <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "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: Re: [nvo3] [Bier] Comments to OOAM Requirements draft from Ron Bonica Hi Nagendra, Thanks for the response. I missed this one in the below email: >>>>> REQ#14: Overlay OAM MUST have the ability to discover and exercise equal cost multipath (ECMP) paths in its transport network. This will require the underlay nodes/router/switches to support OAM semantics, which may not be possible in case of brownfield deployments (deploying NVO tunnels over existing IP-core network). Regards, Saumya. From: "Nagendra Kumar Nainar (naikumar)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Monday, July 4, 2016 at 4:39 PM To: sadikshi <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Gregory Mirsky <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "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: Re: [Bier] [nvo3] Comments to OOAM Requirements draft from Ron Bonica 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
