Hi Martin, On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 12:23 PM Martin Duke via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> wrote: > > Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk-06: No Objection > > ... > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Thanks to David Black for the tsvart review, and for the authors > addressing his comments. > > Sec 2.2 It would help to define "up" and "down" connections.
The -06 version of the draft includes the following text which sort of defines "up" and "down" but I'm not sure it does so clearly or even completely accurately in this case :-( The EVPN PE MUST support MIP functions in the applicable service OAM protocol, for example Ethernet CFM. The EVPN PE SHOULD support MEP functions in the applicable service OAM protocol. This includes both Up and Down MEP functions. As shown in Figure 3, the MIP and MEP functions being referred to are logically located within the CE facing port of a PE. Down MEP functions are towards the CE. Up MEP functions are towards the PE forwarding mechanism. CFM between the PE Up MEPs is a type of EVPN Network OAM while CFM between the CEs or from a PE to its local CE or to the remote CE is Service OAM. So how about the following replacement wording: The EVPN PE MUST support MIP functions in the applicable service OAM protocol, for example Ethernet CFM. The EVPN PE SHOULD support MEP functions in the applicable service OAM protocol. This includes both Up and Down MEP functions. As shown in Figure 3, the MIP and MEP functions being referred to are logically located within the device's port operating at the customer level. (There could be MEPs/MIPs within PE ports facing the provider network but they would not be relevant to EVPN Service OAM as the traffic passing through them will be encapsulated/tunneled so any customer level OAM messages will just be treated as data.) Down MEP functions are away from the device while up MEP functions are towards the device (towards the PE forwarding mechanism in the case of a PE). OAM messages between the PE Up MEPs are a type of EVPN Network OAM while such messages between the CEs or from a PE to its local CE or to the remote CE is Service OAM. and perhaps adding entries for "Down MEP" and "Up MEP" in the Terminology section. Also the following adjusted figure 3 might show more clearly that the MEPs/MIPs are part of the CEs/PEs: +-------+ +----------------+ +----------------+ +-------+ |+-----+| |+--------------+| |+--------------+| |+-----+| || CE || || PE1 || ... || PE2 || || CE || |+--+--+| |+---+--------+-+| |+-+--------+---+| |+--+--+| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |+--+--+| |+---+-----+ . | | . +-----+---+| |+--+--+| || MEP || || | Up^ | . | ... | . |Up^ | || || MEP || ||DownV|| ||MIP|MEP | . | | . |MEP |MIP|| ||downV|| |+--+--+| || |DownV| . | | . |DownV| || |+--+--+| | | | |+---+-----+ | | | | +-----+---+| | | | +---|---+ +----|--------|--+ +--|--------|----+ +---|---+ | | | | | | +------------+ +--- ... ---+ +------------+ > Sec 3.2.1 & 3.2.2. I am not sure of the extent which IPPM metrics and methods > can apply to these layers. But there are some references that can guide loss, > delay, and jitter measurements: > > Loss: RFC 7680, RFC 6673 > > Delay: RFC 7679, RFC 2681 > > Jitter: RFC 3393 > > I encourage the authors to peruse IPPM's published RFCs on datatracker to see > if other documents would be similarly useful. Thanks for the references. I do not see any problem in adding these references for delay and jitter to Section 3.2.2 of the draft and the references for loss to Section 3.2.1 of the draft. Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA d3e...@gmail.com _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess