Thanks Mach for the comments. We will add following TLV in the next revision of
the draft.
3.1.2.1. Block Number TLV
The Loss Measurement using Alternate-Marking method defined in
[RFC8321] requires to identify the Block Number (colour) of the
traffic counters carried by the probe query and response messages.
Probe query and response messages specified in [RFC6374] for Loss
Measurement do not define any means to carry the Block Number.
[RFC6374] defines probe query and response messages that can include
one or more optional TLVs. New TLV Type (value TBA8) is defined in
this document to carry Block Number (32-bit) for the traffic counters
in the probe query and response messages for loss measurement. The
format of the Block Number TLV is shown in Figure 11:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type TBA7 | Length | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Block Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 11: Block Number TLV
The Block Number TLV is optional. The PM querier node SHOULD only
insert one Block Number TLV in the probe query message and the
responder node in the probe response message SHOULD return the first
Block Number TLV from the probe query messages and ignore other Block
Number TLVs if present. In probe query and response messages, the
counters MUST belong to the same Block Number.
Thanks,
Rakesh
From: Mach Chen <[email protected]>
Date: Monday, July 23, 2018 at 11:31 PM
To: "=SMTP:rgandhi@cisco. com" <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, spring <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: New Draft draft-gandhi-spring-udp-pm
Hi Authors,
The draft-gandhi-spring-udp-pm-01 defines a new C flag as following:
3.1.2.1. Loss Measurement Flags
An LM message carries Data Format Flags (DFlags) as defined in
[RFC6374]. New Flag is defined in this document for Color (C) in the
DFlags field as follows.
+-+-+-+-+
|X|B|C|0|
+-+-+-+-+
Data Format Flags
The Flag C indicates the Color of the counters in the LM probe
message [RFC6374] when using Alternate-Marking method defined in
[RFC8321].
-------------
As defined in Section 4.2 of [RFC8321], could you consider to define more than
one flag or a TLV to carry Block number instead?
Best regards,
Mach
From: ippm [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 9:57 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [ippm] New Draft draft-gandhi-spring-udp-pm
Hi WG,
We like to introduce following new draft that was presented to SPRING WG
yesterday.
This draft defines IP/UDP path for sending probe query messages for delay and
loss measurement that is agnostics to data plane (SR-MPLS/SRv6/IP) and does not
require to bootstrap PM session.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gandhi-spring-udp-pm/
You may find presentation in the following package (it is the second draft).
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/102/materials/slides-102-spring-13-performance-measurement-in-sr-networks-00
We welcome your comments and suggestions.
Thanks,
Rakesh (On behalf of authors and contributors)
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
