Thanks for comments on the following proposed table or figure as follows: Greg>MPLS-TP uses LSP ping or, though more rarely, ICMP as-is. In fact, MPLS-TP largely re-used all IP/MPLS OAM though adding some functionality, i.e. RDI, CV, and PCS. Greg>Again, as in previous comment, MPLS-TP OAM does not present itself “different OAM technology”.
[Qin]: You are right, I realized both LSP Ping and MPLS-OAM use MPLS technology while ICMP uses IP technology. I will fix this in the update. Greg>should add OWAMP and TWAMP for Performance Measurement in the following table [Qin]: Agree. Greg>Echo(Ping) in fact belongs continuity check. [Qin]: Agree. Greg>Echo(Ping) does not provide CV as IP is connectionless and has no definition of Misconnection defect. [Qin]:Not sure about this. RFC7276 said LSP Ping is used for end-to-end Connectivity Verification between two LERs. Therefore I think IP Ping can also provide CV, what am I missing? Greg>Actually can be used for BW, Delay and Loss measurement, though very rough. [Qin]: Agree and will add this into the following table. Greg>Not, BFD and BFD Echo do not provide CV for the same reason as for ICMP – do definition of Misconnection defect. Besides, BFD Echo doesn’t work for multi-hop case but only for single hop. [Qin]: Not sure about this. RFC7276 said SP Ping is used for end-to-end Connectivity Verification between two LERs. Since BFD Echo is similar to LSP Ping, I think BFD Echo also can provide CV. Greg>LSP Ping provides Continuity Check too [Qin]: Agree. Greg>All MPLS-TP OAM applicable to IP/MPLS as well [Qin]: Agree. Greg>MPLS-TP provides CC through use of BFD Greg>MPLS-TP provides CV through use of BFD and extension to provide Source ID. [Qin]: Besides using BFD, is there any other way to provide CC or CV? 发件人: OPSAWG [mailto:[email protected]] 代表 Qin Wu 发送时间: 2014年6月25日 16:06 收件人: [email protected]; [email protected] 抄送: [email protected] 主题: [OPSAWG] Strong Technology Dependency 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]> [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
