发件人: Greg Mirsky [mailto:[email protected]]
发送时间: 2019年4月9日 21:33
收件人: [email protected]; RTGWG
<[email protected]>
主题: Questions regarding the draft-wu-model-driven-management-virtualization
Dear Authors,
I have some questions related to OAM aspect of service and network management
automation and much appreciate your consideration:
* I couldn't find Networking Working Group to which the draft seems to be
attributed. In your opinion, in which of IETF WGs you see this work to be the
most relevant?
[Qin]:I think both opsawg and rtgwg are relevant since YANG data model
standardization effort span across routing area and OPS area.
* I couldn't find any reference to the process of Sevice Activation Testing
(SAT) in the document. Are you planning to cover it later or see the absence of
any SAT work at IETF as an obstacle to completing the closed-loop lifecycle for
a service?
[Qin]: This draft will rely on model driven provision model for activation and
provision and model driven telemetry model for service assurance to complete
closed loop lifecycle for the service. Service activation test process in my
opinion just test specification. It is separate closed loop. Not sure we should
deem them as obstacle.
* Figure in Section 3 "Network Service and Resource Models" refers to OAM
and PM separately. Do you see PM not being part of overall OAM toolset?
[Qin]: Can we use ping or trace route to measure latency, jitter, packet loss?
We have dedicated tool for network performance measurement for better
precision, but sometimes the boundary between OAM tool and PM tool is very
fuzzy. So I can understand your question.
* in Section 3.1.2 in regard to LIME models, you've stated: "These three
models can be used to provide consistent reporting, configuration and
representation." Do you have evidence in support of this statement?
[Qin]: maybe we should make one thing clear, i.e., separate connectionless from
connection oriented, we have seen some operators to plan to deploy them.
* Figure 2 lists BFD, LSP Ping, and MPLS-TP models under OAM. In your
opinion, are these three models sufficient to perform 'F' and 'P' of FCAPS
network management, i.e., Fault Management and Performance Monitoring,
adequately? (Should note that LSP Ping and MPLS-TP YANG models are only
individual drafts);
[Qin]: BFD, LSP Ping, and MPLS-TP models under OAM may be not sufficient,
that’s why we add PM to make it adequate. Yes, this draft will evolve over time
if LSP Ping or MPLS-TP make progress.
Regards,
Greg
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
