Re: [nvo3] 答复: Comments on NVO3 data plane requirements for OAM

2014-11-17 Thread Greg Mirsky
Hi Deepak, very interesting and helpful to learn from your experience with latency/jitter measurement. But I think that there are different levels of details: - NVO3 packet format; - NVO3 OAM requirements and gap analysis. For the former, I think OAM flag and two bit long marking field

Re: [nvo3] 答复: 答复: Comments on NVO3 data plane requirements for OAM

2014-11-17 Thread Marc Binderberger
Hello Weiguo, I understand - and expected - your comment :-) Let me ignore for a moment that a full OAM/performance probably requires a header extension (for timestamps etc), which means we could define this as an extension of the NVO3 overlay header anyway. Let's assume we talk about just

Re: [nvo3] 答复: Comments on NVO3 data plane requirements for OAM

2014-11-17 Thread Tom Herbert
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 12:01 AM, Marc Binderberger m...@sniff.de wrote: Hello Deepak et al., so this sounds like we need more than just a (2nd) bit for delay measurement. Seems we need an optional header extension or a TLV to carry all the information (timestamps, oam Subtype). Sounds

Re: [nvo3] 答复: Comments on NVO3 data plane requirements for OAM

2014-11-17 Thread Erik Nordmark
On 11/14/14 12:26 AM, Tom Herbert wrote: On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 5:13 PM, Mach Chen mach.c...@huawei.com wrote: I think if we were implementing delay measurement in GUE, I would advocate add a 64 bit optional field for timestamp, probably containing source time stamp, and echoed timestamp for a

Re: [nvo3] 答复: 答复: Comments on NVO3 data plane requirements for OAM

2014-11-17 Thread Erik Nordmark
On 11/13/14 11:31 PM, Haoweiguo wrote: I would prefer the marking bit in NVO3 header, rather than in outer IP header. This is for overlay network performance measurements, not for underlay network. My understanding is that you want to measure from the encapsulating NVE to the decapsulating

[nvo3] Reminder about mailing list behavior

2014-11-17 Thread Benson Schliesser
As a WG chair, I am also a mailing list moderator (for better or worse...) which means that I get bounced messages from Mailman whenever people do something it doesn't like. Over the past few days there seems to be a valuable discussion about OAM that isn't making it to the list, judging by the

[nvo3] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-herbert-remotecsumoffload-01.txt

2014-11-17 Thread Tom Herbert
This is a new version of remote checksum offload, the primary difference from 00 is that the offsets are now relative to the end of the encapsulation header instead of the beginning. Remote checksum offload is supported in GUE in upstream Linux (will be in 3.18,

[nvo3] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-nvo3-hpvr2nve-cp-req-01.txt

2014-11-17 Thread Liyizhou
We have updated the document as per the offline discussions and mailing list feedback. Basically it 1. Improved the terminologies. Make the definition of Split-NVE consistent with other docs. 2. Refined the bulleted requirements. Comments are welcome. Thanks, Yizhou -Original