Dear All,
I would like to point that this discussion, though very interesting, may be
premature. I believe that the WG should first agree on NVO3 OAM
Requirements and conclude OAM gap analysis. I believe that NVO3 Operations,
Administration, and Maintenance Requirements
I think discussion on what should be on the packet header can happen in
parallel. –requirement document has been around over an year and I am sure
interested people have digested and commented.
Keeping packet header discussions to later may be troublesome as some of these
needed to be built in
I think we are complicating OAM beyond what it is needed.
As far as packet encapsulation is concern, all what is needed is single bit.
This bit is needed to prevent OAM packets leaking out from the domain.
Termination of OAM and processing of it happen based on the addressing in the
packet.
Hi Tissa,
and those vendors implementing pre-standard ideas should fully understand
the risk of ending up on proprietary path.
The document I've pointed to been around and, IMO, can be called for WG
adoption.
Discussion of the header certainly can continue but, I believe, it should
be gated by
Hi Tapraj,
though I agree and support with idea of having OAM flag in NVO3 header I
have to point to:
- absence of WG agreed upon OAM Requirements;
- no gap analysis of tools for NVO3 OAM;
- OAM flag does not help passive performance measurement marking method
(two bit-long field for
Hi Tapraj,
perhaps single hop but that is benign case for in-band problem. Multi-hop
BFD cannot ensure in-band because of common practice to hash ECMP on
5-tuple and the fact that multi-hop BFD uses distinct well-port number.
This is well-known and well-understood problem in IP OAM.
Regards,
Greg
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)
tsene...@cisco.com wrote:
Greg
I disagree with you on FM and PM cannot be achieved in ECMP environment.
Significant amount of work has gone in to this area during TRILL OAM.
Please check the use of Flow entropy functionality
