Thanks, Shane — as the OP, I can say that TWAMP (and STAMP) did cross my radar early on, but didn't appear to be a home run in solving for my loss-alerting use case (although it does help for other adjacent synthetic testing contexts).
-dp From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, April 30, 2025 at 5:08 PM To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: David Zimmerman <[email protected]>, James Bensley <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [NANOG] OAM and multiple choice questions Take a look at TWAMP, which may solve your problems. Shane > On Apr 30, 2025, at 7:56 AM, James Bensley via NANOG <[email protected]> > wrote: > > latency, and packet loss of the service, and in the case of multi-segment > pseudowires check this e2e, and for each segment. We also wanted to provide > link-loss forwarding for the services. Finally, we wanted to allow our > customers to also use CFM over our service, so we used levels 0-3 internally, > and passed levels 4-7 transparently _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/P5RY6OBEUDB5QKJKTB2TTJ6DPDRCXHKZ/
