Hi Greg, Joel,
FYI, END.OTP is used with TWAMP Light (RFC 5357) (and STAMP) in
draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-srpmand RFC 6374 in
draft-gandhi-spring-rfc6374-srpm-udp, for performance delay measurement
use-case.
thanks,
Rakesh
On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 9:49 AM Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com
<mailto:gregimir...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Robert,
could you please clarify your statement "there is huge value
in defining packet timestamping in all oam documents IETF produces
these days"? Is that applicable to Active OAM methods or to other
OAM methodologies, including, Passive and Hybrid? If the
timestamping operation is entirely local to a networking node is
applied to a data flow, in other words, the timestamp value is not
stored in the forwarded downstream data packet, which performance
metric your expect to produce? Or is the expectation to use the
Alternate Marking methodology, as described in RFC 8321, in
combination with the local timestamping? If the product of the
timestamping operation is stored in the data packet, then how is
that different from what is already described in the iOAM draft
you've referenced? I believe that iOAM already has defined a method
to collect timestamps and the method to trigger timestamping
described in the draft we're discussing is duplicating that. Would
you agree?
Regards,
Greg
On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 1:56 AM Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net
<mailto:rob...@raszuk.net>> wrote:
Hi Joel,
> However, there is no defined behavior that I know of that
can make use
> of this timestamp.
Not sure how to read that statement. Are you expecting IETF
draft to tell vendor that computing delta of N values is needed
? Or is IETF draft needed to tell packet analyzers to evaluate
the quality of the path based on packets timestamps ? Yes
routers may never be involved in such processing, but other
network monitoring components do.
Sure current networking in this regard is in stone ages, but
there are real efforts and working code which goes beyond that
already in place. Example:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-08
So there is huge value in defining packet timestamping in all
oam documents IETF produces these days and it would be rather
disservice to remove such important option.
Thx,
r.
On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 1:45 AM Joel M. Halpern
<j...@joelhalpern.com <mailto:j...@joelhalpern.com>> wrote:
If I am reading the draft correctly, the difference between
END.OP and
END.OTP is that an internal process is to attach in some
internal
location a timestamp to the packet. In the abstract, I
understand why
such cna be useful.
However, there is no defined behavior that I know of that
can make use
of this timestamp. Until such a behavior is defined, what
is the value
in defining the END.OTP behavior? (Taken in the extreme,
until there is
such a definition, any implementation which treated END.OTP
as END.OP
would seem to be indistinguishable from proper operation in
terms of
behavior on the wire.)
Yours,
Joel
On 12/18/2019 7:01 PM, Zafar Ali (zali) wrote:
> Hi Joel,
>
> Thanks for your review.
>
> The processing details were embedded in the Section 4.
>
> We brought them up in the Section 3 and also added
additional normative
> language in Section 4.
>
> We have been maintaining the latest version of the draft
in the Github...
>
> However, we also posted the latest diffs, which addresses
your comments
> as follows:
>
> * In the new revision, we have added normative text at
the beginning
> of 3.1.1 where O-bit is defined.
> * Sections 3.3 and 3.4 adds normative texts for OAM SIDs.
> * 4.1.2 and 4.2.2 further adds additional normative
text for Ping and
> traceroute use-cases, respectively.
>
> Latest version is kept in the Github and also uploaded as
>
https://www.ietf.org/staging/draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-03.txt.
>
> Thanks
>
> Regards … Zafar
>
> *From: *"Joel M. Halpern" <j...@joelhalpern.com
<mailto:j...@joelhalpern.com>>
> *Date: *Thursday, December 5, 2019 at 10:01 PM
> *To: *"Zafar Ali (zali)" <z...@cisco.com
<mailto:z...@cisco.com>>, 6man WG <i...@ietf.org
<mailto:i...@ietf.org>>,
> SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org <mailto:spring@ietf.org>>
> *Subject: *Re: 6man w.g. last call for
<draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam>
>
> Sorry, minor typo. SRH, not NSH, in the 4th paragraph.
>
> Joel
>
> On 12/5/2019 9:42 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>
> The normative behavior for the bits in various places
says that the
>
> packet is punted to the control process. In and of
itself, that is
> fine.
>
> However, in order for that to be useful, the control
process has to
> know
>
> what to do with the packet when it gets there. In
the classic case of
>
> router redirect, this is coupled with definition of
various content to
>
> be processed by the router control logic.
>
> In the case of this document, there is no normative
definition of what
>
> the control process is to do with the packet. And
particularly
> since in
>
> many of the cases described the packet that is punted
still has an SRH,
>
> normal packet processing would simply reach the same
"punt" step. With
>
> nowhere to punt it.
>
> You asssume in the examples that some forms of
parsing that bypass the
>
> NSH will take place. But processing does not take
place by instinct or
>
> magic. It takes place because we write RFCs that
describe what has to
>
> happen. Without some definition of the required
parsing, and I believe
>
> (although I am guessing due to the lack of
description) we also need
>
> some normative description of what the control
process is required
> to do.
>
> Note that in most OAM, we define the behavior that is
required, and
> then
>
> indicate where it is permitted to use the control
plane to achieve it.
>
> This results in a clear specification, and
implementation flexibility.
>
> Yours,
>
> Joel
>
> On 12/5/2019 9:34 PM, Zafar Ali (zali) wrote:
>
> Hi Joel,
>
> I did not understand your comment.
>
> Can you please point to specific text in the
draft for which the
> draft
>
> needs to define normative behavior for the "node
punt processor
> look
>
> past the SRH and make determinations based on the
content."?
>
> Thanks
>
> Regards … Zafar
>
> *From: *ipv6 <ipv6-boun...@ietf.org
<mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org>
> <mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org
<mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org>>> on behalf of "Joel M. Halpern"
>
> <j...@joelhalpern.com
<mailto:j...@joelhalpern...com> <mailto:j...@joelhalpern.com
<mailto:j...@joelhalpern.com>>>
>
> *Date: *Wednesday, December 4, 2019 at 4:37 PM
>
> *To: *Ole Troan <otr...@employees.org
<mailto:otr...@employees.org>
> <mailto:otr...@employees.org
<mailto:otr...@employees.org>>>, 6man WG <i...@ietf.org
<mailto:i...@ietf.org>
> <mailto:i...@ietf.org <mailto:i...@ietf.org>>>,
>
> SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org
<mailto:spring@ietf.org> <mailto:spring@ietf.org
<mailto:spring@ietf.org>>>
>
> *Subject: *Re: 6man w.g. last call for
> <draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam>
>
> I re-read this draft, and I am afraid it is currently
> under-specified.
>
> In order for the various examples to work, there
is assumed
> behavior by
>
> the processor to which packets are punted. I
could not find
> where this
>
> normative behavior is described explicitly. It
appears that the
>
> behavior requires that the node "punt processor"
look past the
> SRH and
>
> make determinations based on the content. This
needs to be
> described
>
> explicitly. And it needs some discussion of why
it is legitimate to
>
> look past the SRH when the SRH does not show SL=0.
>
> Yours,
>
> Joel
>
> On 12/4/2019 3:53 PM, Ole Troan wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> As agreed in the working group session
in Singapore, this
>
> message starts a new two week 6MAN Working
Group Last Call on
>
> advancing:
>
> Title : Operations, Administration,
and Maintenance
> (OAM) in
>
> Segment Routing Networks with IPv6 Data
plane (SRv6)
>
> Author : Z. Ali, C. Filsfils, S.
Matsushima, D.
> Voyer, M. Chen
>
> Filename :
draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-02
>
> Pages : 23
>
> Date : 2019-11-20
>
>
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam/
>
> as a Proposed Standard.
>
> Substantive comments and statements of
support for
> publishing this
>
> document should be directed to the mailing list.
>
> Editorial suggestions can be sent to the
author. This last
> call will
>
> end on the 18th of December 2019.
>
> To improve document quality and ensure that
bugs are caught
> as early
>
> as possible, we would require at least
>
> two reviewers to do a complete review of the
> document. Please let
>
> the chairs know if you are willing to be a
reviewer.
>
> The last call will be forwarded to the
spring working
> group, with
>
> discussion directed to the ipv6 list.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bob & Ole, 6man co-chairs
>
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>
> i...@ietf.org <mailto:i...@ietf.org>
<mailto:i...@ietf.org <mailto:i...@ietf.org>>
<mailto:i...@ietf.org <mailto:i...@ietf.org>>
>
> Administrative Requests:
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>
> i...@ietf.org <mailto:i...@ietf.org>
<mailto:i...@ietf.org <mailto:i...@ietf.org>>
<mailto:i...@ietf.org <mailto:i...@ietf.org>>
>
> Administrative Requests:
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>
> i...@ietf.org <mailto:i...@ietf.org>
<mailto:i...@ietf.org <mailto:i...@ietf.org>>
>
> Administrative Requests:
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
i...@ietf.org <mailto:i...@ietf.org>
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
