Hi, Mohamed: Thanks for details review to problem statement draft http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ww-opsawg-multi-layer-oam-00 and update I sent to you.
Regarding strong technology dependency issue, Section 4.2 gives an address scheme example to explain why the existing OAM mechanism has strong Technology as follows: “ Addressing scheme is a good example for an issue that has a high price for being non-generic. Ping of IPv4 and IPv6 looks different in the addressing scheme as well in the ICMP indication field, but they have the same OAM functionalities. ” You asked to clarify the exact point of this paragraph. I think what this paragraph said is For IP ping, IPv4 Ping protocol [RFC792] and IPv6 ping protocol [RFC4443] use different IP technology but share the same OAM function. But I agree with you address scheme is not a typical example for strong technology dependency. I think the typical example is ICMP, LSP Ping and MPLS-TP OAM are using different network technology but share the same OAM functionality, i.e., Path Discovery. Another example is ICMP,BFD,LSP Ping and MPLS-TP OAM are using different network technology but share the same functionality, i.e., continuity check. The following figure shows common OAM functionalities shared by various existing OAM protocols. |--------+-----------+--------------+--------------+------------+ | |Continuity | Connectivity| Path | Performance| | | Check | Verification| Discovery | Monitoring | +--------+-----------+--------------+--------------+------------+ | | | | | | | ICMP | | Echo(Ping) | Traceroute | | | | | | | | +--------+-----------+--------------+--------------+------------+ | | | | | | | BFD | BFD | BFD Echo | | | | | Control | | | | +--------+-----------+--------------+--------------+------------+ | LSP | | | | - Delay | | Ping | | Ping | Traceroute | - Packet | | | | | | Loss | +--------+-----------+--------------+--------------+------------+ | | | | | | | IPPM | | | | | | | | | | | |--------+-----------+--------------+--------------+------------+ | MPLS-TP| | | | | | OAM | CC | CV | Traceroute | -Delay | | | | | | -Packet | | | | | | Loss | +--------+-----------+--------------+--------------+------------+ Hope this clarifies. Regards! -Qin 发件人: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 发送时间: 2014年6月24日 22:13 收件人: Qin Wu 主题: RE: Unified oam BOF proposal request in IETF 90 Hi Qin, Please find attached a first set of comments. Cheers, Med
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
