From melinda.shore@gmail.com Wed Mar 7 19:25:00 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C782D21E803B for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2012 19:25:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lpHNfV9Um36X for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2012 19:24:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pz0-f44.google.com (mail-pz0-f44.google.com [209.85.210.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A1AF21E800F for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2012 19:24:59 -0800 (PST) Received: by dakl33 with SMTP id l33so52945dak.31 for ; Wed, 07 Mar 2012 19:24:59 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=tW8MOB9QO1k7e0QEPNKpeuk8nm0PEgow7LdMR/ncHhA=; b=XsYt0AyeK7NvJKXT52W6uqwWI3VIe2V4jp17Ix7h/eJsL9cw94/mN207aav7+zg5kS 2ZOZ5h2e4d5Uxy3WRldpTJuIECKVifVnmLQhpwiTgvAf9EzvBUdxHjY/mZi3kEcw/sOa 7+Mq+d5QuRd6tix7eOqooeqifbkE31TbNfZbroYcyWeg5pWSL0SJehGmyvblNFfhTvKk d8JfXrb69J6rmhVhrhVQK4jJS9VFiMeWc19i52Ky+VNdZkdR9rLJC07lqcRNVmDJlWHk MW9DcSZcao+l8Okwigap0maf5wBH1Tsq7hggb8qFTzHWOVsTZCkQ1IwlNfoEQdohAhJa U8bw== Received: by 10.68.194.3 with SMTP id hs3mr6878698pbc.119.1331177099273; Wed, 07 Mar 2012 19:24:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from polypro.local (66-230-83-192-rb1.fai.dsl.dynamic.acsalaska.net. [66.230.83.192]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id f7sm1867875pbr.3.2012.03.07.19.24.58 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 07 Mar 2012 19:24:58 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4F582688.3040100@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2012 18:24:56 -0900 From: Melinda Shore User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.27) Gecko/20120216 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.19 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "opsawg@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [OPSAWG] draft-masum-chari-shc-00 X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 03:25:00 -0000 This draft has been raised as a potential agenda item for the upcoming meeting, but there's been no discussion of it on this or related mailing lists that I've seen. Has anybody in addition to the authors taken a look at it and can provide some feedback? Thanks, Melinda From fred@cisco.com Wed Mar 7 22:29:14 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EC5221F8691 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2012 22:29:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -108.809 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-108.809 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.746, BAYES_00=-2.599, DATE_IN_PAST_03_06=0.044, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AioMZM52zE14 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2012 22:29:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from mtv-iport-2.cisco.com (mtv-iport-2.cisco.com [173.36.130.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B247521F8697 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2012 22:29:13 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; l=56; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1331188153; x=1332397753; h=from:subject:date:message-id:cc:to:mime-version: content-transfer-encoding; bh=ChCp1rAHrhUtdNw1qFKSQ7jRpydQ1UbBdy9SGKbZfuc=; b=J80RQbNtrKxv3TS3DtUamt3BVdALFwset+37zE3px8ZI1iY9nAMUQluo eSzzQ4Wn1EM1RGWQZlW3V471BiYWfatwJhIK8arhl2iQ8WcgMkrDwdOsO vosOhA2tKzO6/B8ZGL9z0aUUV0Nhr69t9XIIY3aw6YDs1LyzOUDFoE27o A=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AlEIAFlRWE+rRDoG/2dsb2JhbABDJrUFgQeCIwEnP4Fzh2WbAQGfFI1Mgj9jBIhQjHGFZIozgnI X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,550,1325462400"; d="scan'208";a="35101499" Received: from mtv-core-1.cisco.com ([171.68.58.6]) by mtv-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 08 Mar 2012 06:29:13 +0000 Received: from Freds-Computer.local (tky-vpn-client-231-56.cisco.com [10.70.231.56]) by mtv-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q286TBaD021953; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 06:29:13 GMT Received: from [127.0.0.1] by Freds-Computer.local (PGP Universal service); Thu, 08 Mar 2012 15:29:13 +0900 X-PGP-Universal: processed; by Freds-Computer.local on Thu, 08 Mar 2012 15:29:13 +0900 From: Fred Baker Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 12:27:51 +0900 Message-Id: <2EF3019F-9396-4B06-94CF-FFE1E6C925E3@cisco.com> To: opsawg-chairs@tools.ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: opsawg@ietf.org Subject: [OPSAWG] draft-baker-opsawg-firewalls-00.txt X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 06:29:14 -0000 I would appreciate a slot to discuss this with the WG. From cdl@asgaard.org Thu Mar 8 11:10:25 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA86F21F8534 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 11:10:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.546 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.546 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.053, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FN3FqvXR1rd8 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 11:10:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from asgaard.org (odin.asgaard.org [204.29.151.68]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08C0221F84E0 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 11:10:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by asgaard.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E7B8C78007; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 19:10:20 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at asgaard.org Received: from asgaard.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (odin.asgaard.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GIVhemz1wvMa; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 19:10:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fenrir.asgaard.org (50-76-34-185-ip-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.76.34.185]) by asgaard.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 96191C77FF8; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 19:10:16 +0000 (UTC) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_1243F78B-E7E6-4CF7-B70A-C4501FD884FF"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 From: Christopher LILJENSTOLPE In-Reply-To: <2EF3019F-9396-4B06-94CF-FFE1E6C925E3@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 11:10:14 -0800 Message-Id: <3089EA6B-677D-411A-B921-44EE16E269B2@asgaard.org> References: <2EF3019F-9396-4B06-94CF-FFE1E6C925E3@cisco.com> To: Fred Baker X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257) Cc: opsawg@ietf.org, opsawg-chairs@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] draft-baker-opsawg-firewalls-00.txt X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 19:10:25 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_1243F78B-E7E6-4CF7-B70A-C4501FD884FF Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 We've got you in the agenda... Chris On 07Mar2012, at 19.27, Fred Baker wrote: > I would appreciate a slot to discuss this with the WG. > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > OPSAWG@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg -- =20 =E6=9D=8E=E6=9F=AF=E7=9D=BF Check my PGP key here: https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.asc Current vCard here: https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.vcf Check my calendar availability: https://tungle.me/cdl --Apple-Mail=_1243F78B-E7E6-4CF7-B70A-C4501FD884FF Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPWQQWAAoJEGmx2Mt/+Iw/Bc8H/0jU3DDGIfQg2cviuziizZLb WFRDsjK0vFqteI005aeo9bvvRb/8r19E/2Qf5SNdx8+6BInRF5Ee1keO3YnugH/r WMYr9leVD2T/nfOe6QT3V8wi9rgNOu3z+dIsweKeQpEdlcEXGKIVOjTP/roT2OLc 2RQbrjgTSFL9JSkrEYnEvAnd6gv/CZIis9evaptgPZHenYXK+wRz6ONWxbt8+7Un W1NvicVefgmKJ1ky8CYC6sL87jEwi3YbFTH8Z6dJy6xDIpozB6/IILC/wBGKmH+Z InWlKfyNW2VBfcDePwfxexV7dorzfh8+BuZ+TLKifzPwhqgS1TtsmW+DzbBg7VI= =Gre8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_1243F78B-E7E6-4CF7-B70A-C4501FD884FF-- From ietf-ipr@ietf.org Thu Mar 8 09:49:16 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 402A321F86A6; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 09:49:16 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.391 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.391 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.208, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SmDpL7hxZuCD; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 09:49:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E15621F859F; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 09:49:15 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: IETF Secretariat To: tena@huawei.com, j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de, young@h3c.com, tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.00 Message-ID: <20120308174915.11564.56042.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 09:49:15 -0800 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 11:12:57 -0800 Cc: opsawg@ietf.org, ipr-announce@ietf.org Subject: [OPSAWG] IPR Disclosure: Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration-02 X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 17:49:16 -0000 Dear Tina Tsou (Ting ZOU), Juergen Schoenwaelder, Yang Shi, Tom Taylor: An IPR disclosure that pertains to your Internet-Draft entitled "Problem Statement for the Automated Configuration of Large IP Networks" (draft-ietf- opsawg-automated-network-configuration) was submitted to the IETF Secretari= at on 2012-03-08 and has been posted on the "IETF Page of Intellectual Property R= ights Disclosures" (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1706/). The title of the IPR disclosure is "Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration-02.""); The IETF Secretariat From ietf@cdl.asgaard.org Thu Mar 8 11:17:18 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62A1C21F85DA for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 11:17:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.499 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8HWnsOZjCM+M for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 11:17:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from asgaard.org (odin.asgaard.org [204.29.151.68]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C618921F858D for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 11:17:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by asgaard.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AFC1C7811B for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 19:17:16 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at asgaard.org Received: from asgaard.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (odin.asgaard.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M-XTc6DPysVM for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 19:17:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fenrir.asgaard.org (50-76-34-185-ip-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.76.34.185]) by asgaard.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9984AC7810D for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 19:17:13 +0000 (UTC) From: Christopher LILJENSTOLPE Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D1F56992-2648-415F-BE58-11BC8024E138"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 11:17:09 -0800 Message-Id: To: opsawg@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257) Subject: [OPSAWG] IPR assertion on automated-network-configuration X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 19:17:18 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_D1F56992-2648-415F-BE58-11BC8024E138 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Greetings all, In case you missed it, there has been an IPR assertion on the = automated-network-configuration draft. Please review if interested. Chris -- =20 =E6=9D=8E=E6=9F=AF=E7=9D=BF Check my PGP key here: https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.asc Current vCard here: https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.vcf Check my calendar availability: https://tungle.me/cdl --Apple-Mail=_D1F56992-2648-415F-BE58-11BC8024E138 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPWQW1AAoJEGmx2Mt/+Iw/93QH/24CgPGjxm0WT3+tHljCb7Mu 2Y/nE8FyWkKKWU36pyC/a+AJ58XGTtWiO9Cs4DYz1S8mrNNBngNxqv+2ade1l31g Puka33Y0e9nSTu7QPh0HgsqoycMB1DY19WQObrSEIbgI9pViNxsi+i0XUQaCt+V/ YSpthKCygs8A8pWgowdEUdNWKFJB6skPWsqoTmnP4FL1eiC6inqAwQXNVbi/JAj2 G1YA/d8OEKi0gF3GVT/vWBJksOwunKjSlphiOrQQxveOL0EAlw3NrfEoE5cHZeFr RlG62QQ20aNJWlzCylXWcx1x7MycBoxQxif+i+B/jUL0XqXMxu0ASWnUdbVDqxk= =Z7GP -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_D1F56992-2648-415F-BE58-11BC8024E138-- From ietf@cdl.asgaard.org Thu Mar 8 19:27:19 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96DD421E8035 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 19:27:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.507 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.507 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.092, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OBXiepIh5ofS for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 19:27:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from asgaard.org (odin.asgaard.org [204.29.151.68]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA72121E8010 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 19:27:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by asgaard.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14C57C7BCC4; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 03:27:14 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at asgaard.org Received: from asgaard.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (odin.asgaard.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w8owvKG0NNgJ; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 03:27:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fenrir.asgaard.org (50-76-34-185-ip-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.76.34.185]) by asgaard.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4720AC7BCB6; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 03:27:13 +0000 (UTC) From: Christopher LILJENSTOLPE Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_DB471348-D17F-446A-820A-F23438913B7B"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 19:27:09 -0800 Message-Id: <9C3840C5-F2F2-42FE-B092-9B8C06298342@cdl.asgaard.org> To: opsawg@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257) Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration@tools.ietf.org, opsawg-chairs@tools.ietf.org Subject: [OPSAWG] Pointer to the opsawg-automated-network-configuration patent filing X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2012 03:27:19 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_DB471348-D17F-446A-820A-F23438913B7B Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Greetings, To save people the hunt for the patent that was asserted in the = IPR filing on this draft, the following link should work... = http://www.wipo.int/patentscope/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=3DWO2011150720&= recNum=3D202&maxRec=3D18718&office=3D&prevFilter=3D&sortOption=3D&queryStr= ing=3D%28AAD%2Fshenzhen%29+&tab=3DPCT+Biblio Chris -- =20 =E6=9D=8E=E6=9F=AF=E7=9D=BF Check my PGP key here: https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.asc Current vCard here: https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.vcf Check my calendar availability: https://tungle.me/cdl --Apple-Mail=_DB471348-D17F-446A-820A-F23438913B7B Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPWXiQAAoJEGmx2Mt/+Iw/Tq0H/iq8vXSFuDOSMxJtvU/rO8v/ Aj6CgCJOCmC8y6B6j7BvITn3V1VG5v1f3JKERk9WsosoGWPQBiXBENmdRXLyJN3M pWVQFFUUqNoeyOzF2BCo7QoPjG5lCWTQ+BCWBSVA4vrmRdN+O+NK9YFeN8CsDhjW wRMazpNUrCR+M4Tf5dqersywyGSa/YQA3Kwt8Lc2sGcqCh3JybPTMVRzD5GDS1Wo UG1bbJTmq2JUHnmnR+gDXFzVf9k9XZAX9x6UCviKyvvvZ3l00xnx+tt0za24U3BA nQah75An9QWi1FftBPz4hZ7k+DGFIlXPbeDPP7b39FsVEaWjFzWHia7Dwmpn39o= =qgMc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_DB471348-D17F-446A-820A-F23438913B7B-- From ietf@cdl.asgaard.org Fri Mar 9 11:45:41 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7205521E807B for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 11:45:41 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.514 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.514 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.085, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NlFq17+1PYhP for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 11:45:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from asgaard.org (odin.asgaard.org [204.29.151.68]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 875CF21E8062 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 11:45:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by asgaard.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F24BC82C29; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 19:45:39 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at asgaard.org Received: from asgaard.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (odin.asgaard.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9NOLFcv1BmVj; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 19:45:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fenrir.asgaard.org (50-76-34-185-ip-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.76.34.185]) by asgaard.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8C6B3C82C1B; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 19:45:38 +0000 (UTC) From: Christopher LILJENSTOLPE Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_CCCD18BD-75D9-47DE-A3AC-2A4BE15E6FA2"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2012 11:45:37 -0800 Message-Id: To: opsawg@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257) Cc: opsawg-chairs@tools.ietf.org Subject: [OPSAWG] Poll on automatic-network-configuration as per policy X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2012 19:45:41 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_CCCD18BD-75D9-47DE-A3AC-2A4BE15E6FA2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Greetings, As we have been notified that there is an IPR claim on this wg = draft, I am following policy and asking the working group if we want to = continue with this draft as it stands, work on an alternate, non-IPR = encumbered approach, or abandon the work altogether? Please speak up ASAP so we can come into Paris with some working = group view. Thank you, Christopher=09 -- =20 =E6=9D=8E=E6=9F=AF=E7=9D=BF Check my PGP key here: https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.asc Current vCard here: https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.vcf Check my calendar availability: https://tungle.me/cdl --Apple-Mail=_CCCD18BD-75D9-47DE-A3AC-2A4BE15E6FA2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPWl3hAAoJEGmx2Mt/+Iw/6WMH/RBmGJWLLkrSosn06soPc5xK LG5Eig82WrHtDBJpx2uNkL1pojriegSL4krldJNipciKX834TxkJkCQpNI/LZRmp ZnL1CtxK7Erq1DnTDpKh9iW8ln2xEK1h9+PALnxF8JMEjg6PxLH1ci6DOoSnNoCl /OyeM7FL1JRu9o8VfW3LT+FmELEmqawG19Lgi64DjFfL6vnrgZtBcXbl09jSeVKd lhHM2Pvij9X6VvliWsdG5VfjPm36Lep3XYVCOUiI/vaRjTYyDIx9KiDo23SgLid8 ykOvYZZBLWS38JslcYk53OCVBmlNUiMPBDRZ2UnPzyKTfzJwxedfsCTrCYTGW7w= =MNUR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_CCCD18BD-75D9-47DE-A3AC-2A4BE15E6FA2-- From warren@kumari.net Fri Mar 9 13:59:50 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60CAB21E80C8 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 13:59:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.486 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.486 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.113, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eydTPaDPy+gS for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 13:59:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from vimes.kumari.net (vimes.kumari.net [198.186.192.250]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B103821E80B4 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 13:59:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from dhcp-172-19-119-93.cbf.corp.google.com (unknown [64.13.52.115]) by vimes.kumari.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 737E21B41BB9; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 16:59:48 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 From: Warren Kumari In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2012 16:59:47 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <23E4DA68-7E99-4B77-ADEA-8F0F71646A07@kumari.net> References: To: Christopher LILJENSTOLPE X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: opsawg@ietf.org, opsawg-chairs@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Poll on automatic-network-configuration as per policy X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2012 21:59:50 -0000 On Mar 9, 2012, at 2:45 PM, Christopher LILJENSTOLPE wrote: > Greetings, >=20 > As we have been notified that there is an IPR claim on this wg = draft, I am following policy and asking the working group if we want to = continue with this draft as it stands, work on an alternate, non-IPR = encumbered approach, or abandon the work altogether? I personally would rather walk away, either from just this draft, or the = work... I guess part of my grumpiness is that the IPR came from the same company = as one of the authors, and @ rev -02... >=20 > Please speak up ASAP so we can come into Paris with some working = group view. Fair 'nuff. W >=20 > Thank you, > Christopher=09 > -- =20 > =E6=9D=8E=E6=9F=AF=E7=9D=BF > Check my PGP key here: https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.asc > Current vCard here: https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.vcf > Check my calendar availability: https://tungle.me/cdl >=20 > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > OPSAWG@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg From randy@psg.com Fri Mar 9 18:40:07 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E3C321E8021 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 18:40:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.512 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.512 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.087, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MXmAqheTGCUv for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 18:40:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::36]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 262F521E8018 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 18:40:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=rair.psg.com.psg.com) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1S6CE0-0007OL-N6; Sat, 10 Mar 2012 02:40:05 +0000 Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2012 11:40:03 +0900 Message-ID: From: Randy Bush To: Christopher LILJENSTOLPE In-Reply-To: References: User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/22.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: opsawg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Poll on automatic-network-configuration as per policy X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2012 02:40:07 -0000 > As we have been notified that there is an IPR claim on this wg > draft, what wg draft? ls: ids/*automatic-network-configuration*: No such file or directory randy From melinda.shore@gmail.com Fri Mar 9 18:46:10 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 052CD21E8018 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 18:46:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0+5K-bOwYEbi for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 18:46:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pz0-f44.google.com (mail-pz0-f44.google.com [209.85.210.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BB8421F84DC for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 18:45:38 -0800 (PST) Received: by dakl33 with SMTP id l33so2355999dak.31 for ; Fri, 09 Mar 2012 18:45:38 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Uh5jCKWdX6ZmiDFcffmwmXxPXK3jXfO+IWizR0U0res=; b=x1vad+eqevAVgfPuOGUX03a0JXN7pdW+YHR7A0BznUJ0yoDl9pEFZNBKbPo4qaHm/3 P9PQQGPxz+gJf2nw2XgRUvAp1dCbTtS2398rrN5UhpCqaRhR1gL4NalJFGqB/qjfHV5C UessoedWY/fAV9AUcdlLa0PbQODqsXorexCMreApS3LGQI6IxZgDoefiSR1Kl3q7o/6G al85i117r6iUeNwiiQ6eKnb1BdxeJ//5Qxfd07w07Xhh1QfjzmvAwFMLtpT5m4bSO+uc ZlkNyPvYj9ZLdFGW4o3KeQ4egpv9wsWAFo9FqpCk1zUU+EJVpqB9kFyNL4/NlrdHqKLu fNXA== Received: by 10.68.226.9 with SMTP id ro9mr7834494pbc.31.1331347538040; Fri, 09 Mar 2012 18:45:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from polypro.local (66-230-83-192-rb1.fai.dsl.dynamic.acsalaska.net. [66.230.83.192]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id r10sm2482152pbf.22.2012.03.09.18.45.36 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 09 Mar 2012 18:45:37 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4F5AC04F.7080007@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2012 17:45:35 -0900 From: Melinda Shore User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.27) Gecko/20120216 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.19 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Randy Bush References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: opsawg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Poll on automatic-network-configuration as per policy X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2012 02:46:10 -0000 On 3/9/12 5:40 PM, Randy Bush wrote: > what wg draft? > ls: ids/*automatic-network-configuration*: No such file or directory That should be "automated" : draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration Melinda From randy@psg.com Fri Mar 9 18:48:23 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EF4C21F84E0 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 18:48:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.513 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.513 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.086, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gWIvgV79kW7u for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 18:48:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::36]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76C7121F84DC for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 18:48:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=rair.psg.com.psg.com) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1S6CLg-0007Py-69; Sat, 10 Mar 2012 02:48:00 +0000 Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2012 11:47:59 +0900 Message-ID: From: Randy Bush To: Christopher LILJENSTOLPE In-Reply-To: References: User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/22.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: opsawg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Poll on automatic-network-configuration as per policy X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2012 02:48:23 -0000 >> As we have been notified that there is an IPR claim on this wg >> draft, > what wg draft? > ls: ids/*automatic-network-configuration*: No such file or directory found it. s/automated/automatic/ so it is http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration/ having done work in this particular area for some years, and being aware of a large recent body of academic research, much good, in the area, i am not impressed by the draft, so will not miss it. randy From Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com Fri Mar 9 20:48:29 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF0DA11E8076 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 20:48:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.413 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.413 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.186, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wvDFS4ouUk11 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 20:48:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com (szxga01-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.64]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A83621F84FC for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 20:48:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from huawei.com (szxga05-in [172.24.2.49]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0M0N00LMYK03FO@szxga05-in.huawei.com> for opsawg@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Mar 2012 12:48:03 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0M0N00HBPK03FD@szxga05-in.huawei.com> for opsawg@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Mar 2012 12:48:03 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxeml202-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.1.9-GA) with ESMTP id AHS61499; Sat, 10 Mar 2012 12:48:00 +0800 Received: from SZXEML419-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.158) by szxeml202-edg.china.huawei.com (172.24.2.42) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Sat, 10 Mar 2012 12:47:46 +0800 Received: from SZXEML526-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.11]) by szxeml419-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.158]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Sat, 10 Mar 2012 12:47:49 +0800 Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2012 04:47:51 +0000 From: Tina TSOU In-reply-to: <9C3840C5-F2F2-42FE-B092-9B8C06298342@cdl.asgaard.org> X-Originating-IP: [10.212.244.145] To: Christopher LILJENSTOLPE , "opsawg@ietf.org" Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-language: en-US Content-transfer-encoding: base64 Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Thread-topic: [OPSAWG] Pointer to the opsawg-automated-network-configuration patent filing Thread-index: AQHM/aSQkGjTg/1AbU+UgZaeJdexW5Zi9dlw X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected References: <9C3840C5-F2F2-42FE-B092-9B8C06298342@cdl.asgaard.org> Cc: "draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration@tools.ietf.org" , "opsawg-chairs@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Pointer to the opsawg-automated-network-configuration patent filing X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2012 04:48:29 -0000 SSBhcG9sb2dpemUgc2luY2VyZWx5IGZvciB0aGUgbGF0ZSBkaXNjbG9zdXJlIG9uIHZlcnNpb24g LTAyLnR4dCBvZiB0aGUgZm9sbG93aW5nIGRyYWZ0IHJlbGVhc2VkIG9uIE9jdG9iZXIgMzEsIDIw MTE6DQoNCmh0dHA6Ly90b29scy5pZXRmLm9yZy9odG1sL2RyYWZ0LWlldGYtb3BzYXdnLWF1dG9t YXRlZC1uZXR3b3JrLWNvbmZpZ3VyYXRpb24tMDINCg0KVGhlIElQUiAoQ2hpbmVzZSBQYXRlbnQp IGRvZXMgbm90IG1hdGNoIHRoZSAtMDAgYW5kIC0wMSB2ZXJzaW9ucy4gDQoNCk91ciBjb21wYXJp c29uIG9mIHRoZSB2ZXJzaW9uIC0wMiB0b29rIHRpbWUgaW4gdGhlIGxhc3QgZmV3IG1vbnRocy4g IFdlIG11c3QgcmV2aWV3IGJvdGggQ2hpbmVzZSBhbmQgRW5nbGlzaCBzb3VyY2VzLCBhbmQgcmV2 aWV3IHdpdGggdGhlIEh1YXdlaSdzIElQUiB0byB2ZXJpZnkgb3VyIHVuZGVyc3RhbmRpbmcuIEh1 YXdlaSdzIElQUiBkZXBhcnRtZW50IGhhcyBiZWVuIHdvcmtpbmcgaGFyZCB0byBjYXRjaCB1cCwg YnV0IGl0IGp1c3QgdG9vayBhIGJpdCBvZiB0aW1lLiAgDQoNCkkgYXBvbG9naXplIEkgbWlzc2Vk IHNlbmRpbmcgdGhpcyBvdXQgaW4gdGhlIGxhc3QgZmV3IHdlZWtzLg0KDQpUaW5hDQoNCg0KPiAt LS0tLU9yaWdpbmFsIE1lc3NhZ2UtLS0tLQ0KPiBGcm9tOiBvcHNhd2ctYm91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9y ZyBbbWFpbHRvOm9wc2F3Zy1ib3VuY2VzQGlldGYub3JnXSBPbiBCZWhhbGYgT2YNCj4gQ2hyaXN0 b3BoZXIgTElMSkVOU1RPTFBFDQo+IFNlbnQ6IFRodXJzZGF5LCBNYXJjaCAwOCwgMjAxMiA3OjI3 IFBNDQo+IFRvOiBvcHNhd2dAaWV0Zi5vcmcNCj4gQ2M6IGRyYWZ0LWlldGYtb3BzYXdnLWF1dG9t YXRlZC1uZXR3b3JrLWNvbmZpZ3VyYXRpb25AdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmc7DQo+IG9wc2F3Zy1jaGFp cnNAdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcNCj4gU3ViamVjdDogW09QU0FXR10gUG9pbnRlciB0byB0aGUgb3Bz YXdnLWF1dG9tYXRlZC1uZXR3b3JrLWNvbmZpZ3VyYXRpb24NCj4gcGF0ZW50IGZpbGluZw0KPiAN Cj4gR3JlZXRpbmdzLA0KPiANCj4gCVRvIHNhdmUgcGVvcGxlIHRoZSBodW50IGZvciB0aGUgcGF0 ZW50IHRoYXQgd2FzIGFzc2VydGVkIGluIHRoZSBJUFINCj4gZmlsaW5nIG9uIHRoaXMgZHJhZnQs IHRoZSBmb2xsb3dpbmcgbGluayBzaG91bGQgd29yay4uLg0KPiANCj4gaHR0cDovL3d3dy53aXBv LmludC9wYXRlbnRzY29wZS9zZWFyY2gvZW4vZGV0YWlsLmpzZj9kb2NJZD1XTzIwMTExNTA3MjAm cmVjDQo+IE51bT0yMDImbWF4UmVjPTE4NzE4Jm9mZmljZT0mcHJldkZpbHRlcj0mc29ydE9wdGlv bj0mcXVlcnlTdHJpbmc9JTI4QUFEJTJGcw0KPiBoZW56aGVuJTI5KyZ0YWI9UENUK0JpYmxpbw0K PiANCj4gCUNocmlzDQo+IC0tDQo+IOadjuafr+edvw0KPiBDaGVjayBteSBQR1Aga2V5IGhlcmU6 IGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmFzZ2FhcmQub3JnL35jZGwvY2RsLmFzYw0KPiBDdXJyZW50IHZDYXJkIGhl cmU6IGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmFzZ2FhcmQub3JnL35jZGwvY2RsLnZjZg0KPiBDaGVjayBteSBjYWxl bmRhciBhdmFpbGFiaWxpdHk6IGh0dHBzOi8vdHVuZ2xlLm1lL2NkbA0KDQo= From rbonica@juniper.net Sat Mar 10 11:32:31 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2240D21F8569 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2012 11:32:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.503 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.503 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.096, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Hw4a5Ldl3ufm for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2012 11:32:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from exprod7og105.obsmtp.com (exprod7og105.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.163]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E320321F84F4 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2012 11:32:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob105.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT1usMSjzjuyIt8i/PSKOUpRn7d35+PQM@postini.com; Sat, 10 Mar 2012 11:32:29 PST Received: from p-emfe02-wf.jnpr.net (172.28.145.25) by P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Sat, 10 Mar 2012 11:30:39 -0800 Received: from EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net ([fe80::1914:3299:33d9:e43b]) by p-emfe02-wf.jnpr.net ([fe80::c126:c633:d2dc:8090%11]) with mapi; Sat, 10 Mar 2012 14:30:39 -0500 From: Ronald Bonica To: Christopher LILJENSTOLPE , "opsawg@ietf.org" Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2012 14:30:37 -0500 Thread-Topic: [OPSAWG] Pointer to the opsawg-automated-network-configuration patent filing Thread-Index: Acz9pI6j7xjFPaN4S9m8jSaFYTlaSwBTyTRg Message-ID: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D76809DA11@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> References: <9C3840C5-F2F2-42FE-B092-9B8C06298342@cdl.asgaard.org> In-Reply-To: <9C3840C5-F2F2-42FE-B092-9B8C06298342@cdl.asgaard.org> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: e4081efb-6d29-443c-8708-750833aec629 Cc: "draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration@tools.ietf.org" , "opsawg-chairs@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Pointer to the opsawg-automated-network-configuration patent filing X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2012 19:32:31 -0000 QXV0aG9ycywNCg0KVGhlIHRpdGxlIG9mIHRoaXMgZHJhZnQgaXMgIlByb2JsZW0gU3RhdGVtZW50 IGZvciB0aGUgQXV0b21hdGVkIENvbmZpZ3VyYXRpb24gb2YgTGFyZ2UgSVAgTmV0d29ya3MiLiBI b3cgaXMgaXQgcG9zc2libGUgdGhhdCB0aGVyZSBpcyBJUFIgYXNzb2NpYXRlZCB3aXRoIGEgcHJv YmxlbSBzdGF0ZW1lbnQ/IEhhcyB0aGUgZHJhZnQgc3RyYXllZCBpbnRvIHByb3Bvc2luZyBhIHNv bHV0aW9uPw0KDQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICBSb24NCiAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIC9zcGVha2luZyBhcyBpbmRpdmlkdWFsIGNv bnRyaWJ1dG9yDQoNCg0KDQo+IC0tLS0tT3JpZ2luYWwgTWVzc2FnZS0tLS0tDQo+IEZyb206IG9w c2F3Zy1ib3VuY2VzQGlldGYub3JnIFttYWlsdG86b3BzYXdnLWJvdW5jZXNAaWV0Zi5vcmddIE9u DQo+IEJlaGFsZiBPZiBDaHJpc3RvcGhlciBMSUxKRU5TVE9MUEUNCj4gU2VudDogVGh1cnNkYXks IE1hcmNoIDA4LCAyMDEyIDEwOjI3IFBNDQo+IFRvOiBvcHNhd2dAaWV0Zi5vcmcNCj4gQ2M6IGRy YWZ0LWlldGYtb3BzYXdnLWF1dG9tYXRlZC1uZXR3b3JrLWNvbmZpZ3VyYXRpb25AdG9vbHMuaWV0 Zi5vcmc7DQo+IG9wc2F3Zy1jaGFpcnNAdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcNCj4gU3ViamVjdDogW09QU0FX R10gUG9pbnRlciB0byB0aGUgb3BzYXdnLWF1dG9tYXRlZC1uZXR3b3JrLWNvbmZpZ3VyYXRpb24N Cj4gcGF0ZW50IGZpbGluZw0KPiANCj4gR3JlZXRpbmdzLA0KPiANCj4gCVRvIHNhdmUgcGVvcGxl IHRoZSBodW50IGZvciB0aGUgcGF0ZW50IHRoYXQgd2FzIGFzc2VydGVkIGluIHRoZQ0KPiBJUFIg ZmlsaW5nIG9uIHRoaXMgZHJhZnQsIHRoZSBmb2xsb3dpbmcgbGluayBzaG91bGQgd29yay4uLg0K PiANCj4gaHR0cDovL3d3dy53aXBvLmludC9wYXRlbnRzY29wZS9zZWFyY2gvZW4vZGV0YWlsLmpz Zj9kb2NJZD1XTzIwMTExNTA3MjANCj4gJnJlY051bT0yMDImbWF4UmVjPTE4NzE4Jm9mZmljZT0m cHJldkZpbHRlcj0mc29ydE9wdGlvbj0mcXVlcnlTdHJpbmc9JTINCj4gOEFBRCUyRnNoZW56aGVu JTI5KyZ0YWI9UENUK0JpYmxpbw0KPiANCj4gCUNocmlzDQo+IC0tDQo+IOadjuafr+edvw0KPiBD aGVjayBteSBQR1Aga2V5IGhlcmU6IGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmFzZ2FhcmQub3JnL35jZGwvY2RsLmFz Yw0KPiBDdXJyZW50IHZDYXJkIGhlcmU6IGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmFzZ2FhcmQub3JnL35jZGwvY2Rs LnZjZg0KPiBDaGVjayBteSBjYWxlbmRhciBhdmFpbGFiaWxpdHk6IGh0dHBzOi8vdHVuZ2xlLm1l L2NkbA0KDQo= From adrian@olddog.co.uk Sun Mar 11 10:19:07 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C13821F855A for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2012 10:19:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.262 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.262 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.963, BAYES_00=-2.599, MANGLED_TOOL=2.3] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rWtkSC9Uoc5c for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2012 10:19:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (asmtp2.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.249]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1072321F8510 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2012 10:19:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q2BHJ0CG023721; Sun, 11 Mar 2012 17:19:00 GMT Received: from 950129200 ([90.84.144.176]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q2BHItPT023699 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sun, 11 Mar 2012 17:18:57 GMT From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "'Tina TSOU'" , Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 17:18:56 -0000 Message-ID: <018b01ccffab$0d745500$285cff00$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: Acz/qo6KXVXVg/a2TjSvWZCcVuh8pQ== Content-Language: en-gb Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration@tools.ietf.org, opsawg-chairs@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Pointer to the opsawg-automated-network-configuration patent filing X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 17:19:07 -0000 Hi Tina, [individual contributor hat on] Thanks for this email. I am as confused as others as to how a patent can be considered to apply = to a problem statement. Since you say that the patent did not apply to the previous two = revisions I suppose we can assume that material that shows in the diff = from =3D01 to -02 is where the patent is deemed to apply. I would think that the WG should either ignore this disclosure = (recognising that there is nothing to implement in this I-D) or revert = the text to -01 and try to move forward differently. Wrt comments that this I-D doesn't contain much of value: IMHO this is a = WG I-D and it is up to the WG to make it contain valuable material = before WG last call or to abandon it. But that is not a function of this = IPR disclosure. Cheers, Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:opsawg-bounces@ietf.org] On = Behalf > Of Tina TSOU > Sent: 10 March 2012 04:48 > To: Christopher LILJENSTOLPE; opsawg@ietf.org > Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration@tools.ietf.org; = opsawg- > chairs@tools.ietf.org > Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Pointer to the opsawg-automated-network- > configuration patent filing >=20 > I apologize sincerely for the late disclosure on version -02.txt of = the following > draft released on October 31, 2011: >=20 > = http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configurat= ion- > 02 >=20 > The IPR (Chinese Patent) does not match the -00 and -01 versions. >=20 > Our comparison of the version -02 took time in the last few months. = We must > review both Chinese and English sources, and review with the Huawei's = IPR to > verify our understanding. Huawei's IPR department has been working = hard to > catch up, but it just took a bit of time. >=20 > I apologize I missed sending this out in the last few weeks. >=20 > Tina >=20 >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:opsawg-bounces@ietf.org] On = Behalf > Of > > Christopher LILJENSTOLPE > > Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 7:27 PM > > To: opsawg@ietf.org > > Cc: = draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration@tools.ietf.org; > > opsawg-chairs@tools.ietf.org > > Subject: [OPSAWG] Pointer to the = opsawg-automated-network-configuration > > patent filing > > > > Greetings, > > > > To save people the hunt for the patent that was asserted in the IPR > > filing on this draft, the following link should work... > > > > > = http://www.wipo.int/patentscope/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=3DWO2011150720= &r > ec > > > = Num=3D202&maxRec=3D18718&office=3D&prevFilter=3D&sortOption=3D&queryStrin= g=3D%28 > AAD%2Fs > > henzhen%29+&tab=3DPCT+Biblio > > > > Chris > > -- > > =E6=9D=8E=E6=9F=AF=E7=9D=BF > > Check my PGP key here: https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.asc > > Current vCard here: https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.vcf > > Check my calendar availability: https://tungle.me/cdl >=20 > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > OPSAWG@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg From j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de Sun Mar 11 11:10:01 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAD1D21F8592 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2012 11:10:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.212 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.212 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.037, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s4277JICP9Eb for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2012 11:10:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDD3F21F8512 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2012 11:10:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (demetrius3.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.48]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEED320C5E; Sun, 11 Mar 2012 19:09:59 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius3.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6Gf-NPvcEN49; Sun, 11 Mar 2012 19:09:59 +0100 (CET) Received: from elstar.local (elstar.jacobs.jacobs-university.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D6EF20C5D; Sun, 11 Mar 2012 19:09:59 +0100 (CET) Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id 778B21DF4003; Sun, 11 Mar 2012 19:09:57 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 19:09:57 +0100 From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: Ronald Bonica Message-ID: <20120311180956.GD63351@elstar.local> Mail-Followup-To: Ronald Bonica , Christopher LILJENSTOLPE , "opsawg@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration@tools.ietf.org" , "opsawg-chairs@tools.ietf.org" References: <9C3840C5-F2F2-42FE-B092-9B8C06298342@cdl.asgaard.org> <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D76809DA11@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D76809DA11@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: "opsawg@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration@tools.ietf.org" , "opsawg-chairs@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Pointer to the opsawg-automated-network-configuration patent filing X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 18:10:01 -0000 On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 02:30:37PM -0500, Ronald Bonica wrote: > Authors, > > The title of this draft is "Problem Statement for the Automated > Configuration of Large IP Networks". How is it possible that there > is IPR associated with a problem statement? Has the draft strayed > into proposing a solution? Ronald, I have done the edits from -01 to -02 (the colored html diffs can be found here [1] for easy inspection). The goal of my edits was to address WG last call comments provided by Wesley George and Kent Watsen. As far as I can tell, this draft has not strayed into proposing a solution nor does it contain any specification that one can be implement - it remains a problem statement document. I have not been aware of any IPR until I received the email from the IETF secretariat (CCed to the WG mailing list) last Thursday. I do not know what it might mean to have an IPR report filed on a problem statement document. (And for sure I am puzzled since yesterday which of my edits can have caused this.) /js (speaking for himself only) [1] http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration-02.txt -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 From melinda.shore@gmail.com Sun Mar 11 11:24:36 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3867B21F86A8 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2012 11:24:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Oi0pREswbCdR for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2012 11:24:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pz0-f44.google.com (mail-pz0-f44.google.com [209.85.210.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAB3B21F86A6 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2012 11:24:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by dakl33 with SMTP id l33so4380745dak.31 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2012 11:24:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=8+XxM7xp13VtSKN/Vqjh0SoN7amkcnyCFGKFv686MzQ=; b=LXulVk+qRZyFWm8ASahMP9LZ65gobKzbnoBvLNwkV/J08kNtKbfSG3wyKzQxD2adQC fX+41iBnmbY10hxrw5lxNvt5nmlJsta6cXgAksUV4eatPvqcn71ZdmVBhDOBlGKOiwMf q9BPEG9l4npsVk9AvuiijIm7vloA5zAGUgS8Qz/6gzCUYhnji6KAOJe3p9EJ0aBET8pV RNwYwQbhfvrnDLKh6pbyODg8l3Bpmftj/bxeX07Mu5iGnjRRDNANAK1zti30xfnzqQTT Ml/1pMlDoCJNPpEQvdQzPwAGJ5VHxpFhFrPMu0N7CDY6w4WRxXAiEHnenLYcY/s8w63l 9g+Q== Received: by 10.68.197.103 with SMTP id it7mr13523278pbc.153.1331490275563; Sun, 11 Mar 2012 11:24:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from polypro.local (66-230-83-192-rb1.fai.dsl.dynamic.acsalaska.net. [66.230.83.192]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id vy2sm8600936pbb.48.2012.03.11.11.24.32 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 11 Mar 2012 11:24:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4F5CEDDF.70306@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 10:24:31 -0800 From: Melinda Shore User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.27) Gecko/20120216 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.19 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ronald Bonica , Christopher LILJENSTOLPE , "opsawg@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration@tools.ietf.org" , "opsawg-chairs@tools.ietf.org" References: <9C3840C5-F2F2-42FE-B092-9B8C06298342@cdl.asgaard.org> <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D76809DA11@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> <20120311180956.GD63351@elstar.local> In-Reply-To: <20120311180956.GD63351@elstar.local> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Pointer to the opsawg-automated-network-configuration patent filing X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 18:24:36 -0000 On 3/11/12 10:09 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: >I do > not know what it might mean to have an IPR report filed on a problem > statement document. (And for sure I am puzzled since yesterday which > of my edits can have caused this.) Surely somebody, somewhere knows what triggered the IPR statement. Does someone from Huawei know who posted it, and why? Melinda From internet-drafts@ietf.org Mon Mar 12 03:43:01 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F129421F870A; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 03:43:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.576 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.576 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.023, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id agAYj12tR698; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 03:43:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8114321F8680; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 03:43:00 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.00 Message-ID: <20120312104300.31426.18882.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 03:43:00 -0700 Cc: opsawg@ietf.org Subject: [OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds-06.txt X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 10:43:01 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Operations and Management Area Workin= g Group Working Group of the IETF. Title : An Overview of the IETF Network Management Standards Author(s) : Mehmet Ersue Benoit Claise Filename : draft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds-06.txt Pages : 97 Date : 2012-03-12 This document gives an overview of the IETF network management standards and summarizes existing and ongoing development of IETF standards-track network management protocols and data models. The purpose of this document is on the one hand to help system developers and users to select appropriate standard management protocols and data models to address relevant management needs. On the other hand, the document can be used as an overview and guideline by other Standard Development Organizations or bodies planning to use IETF management technologies and data models. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds-06.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds-06.txt From internet-drafts@ietf.org Mon Mar 12 04:09:01 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12B6821F85EE; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 04:09:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.577 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.577 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.022, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uw2CHmE1gndi; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 04:09:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D3F321F85FB; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 04:09:00 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.00 Message-ID: <20120312110900.5810.97711.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 04:09:00 -0700 Cc: opsawg@ietf.org Subject: [OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-overview-06.txt X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 11:09:01 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Operations and Management Area Workin= g Group Working Group of the IETF. Title : An Overview of Operations, Administration, and Maintenan= ce (OAM) Mechanisms Author(s) : Tal Mizrahi Nurit Sprecher Elisa Bellagamba Yaacov Weingarten Filename : draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-overview-06.txt Pages : 28 Date : 2012-03-12 Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) is a general term that refers to a toolset that can be used for fault detection and isolation, and for performance measurement. OAM mechanisms have been defined for various layers in the protocol stack, and are used with a variety of protocols. This document presents an overview of the OAM mechanisms that have been defined and are currently being defined by the IETF. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-overview-06.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-overview-06.txt From internet-drafts@ietf.org Mon Mar 12 11:18:44 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 850CA21F8772; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 11:18:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.58 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.58 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.019, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FuLPnLKdYYKP; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 11:18:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E017321F8739; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 11:18:43 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.00 Message-ID: <20120312181843.2469.71761.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 11:18:43 -0700 Cc: opsawg@ietf.org Subject: [OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration-03.txt X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 18:18:44 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Operations and Management Area Workin= g Group Working Group of the IETF. Title : Problem Statement for the Automated Configuration of Lar= ge IP Networks Author(s) : Tina Tsou Juergen Schoenwaelder Yang Shi Tom Taylor Guoliang Yang Filename : draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration-03.txt Pages : 23 Date : 2012-03-12 This memo discusses the steps required to bring a large number of devices into service in IP networks in an automated fashion. The goal of this document is to list known solutions where they exist and to identify gaps that require further specifications. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-con= figuration-03.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-conf= iguration-03.txt From fanpeng@chinamobile.com Mon Mar 12 08:23:53 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C7A421F879A for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 08:23:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.038 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.038 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.185, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RELAY_IS_221=2.222] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XrWBJpDVFRmk for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 08:23:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imss.chinamobile.com (imss.chinamobile.com [221.130.253.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0745E21F8793 for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 08:23:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imss.chinamobile.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.chinamobile.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F9E1E483; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 23:23:50 +0800 (CST) Received: from mail.chinamobile.com (unknown [10.1.28.22]) by imss.chinamobile.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 236E0E3F1; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 23:23:50 +0800 (CST) Received: from X6X8D79D8F49E2 ([10.2.43.116]) by mail.chinamobile.com (Lotus Domino Release 6.5.6) with ESMTP id 2012031223234836-23039 ; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 23:23:48 +0800 From: "fanpeng" To: , "'Bradner, Scott'" , , Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 23:23:52 +0800 Message-ID: <00b101cd0064$21a58e40$64f0aac0$@chinamobile.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: Ac0AYKEIZUNCHsMCQFy+plDRsjopKg== X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on jtgsml01/servers/cmcc(Release 6.5.6|March 06, 2007) at 2012-03-12 23:23:48, Serialize by Router on jtgsml01/servers/cmcc(Release 6.5.6|March 06, 2007) at 2012-03-12 23:23:49, Serialize complete at 2012-03-12 23:23:49 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00B2_01CD00A7.2FCB3F40" Content-Language: zh-cn X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.0.0.8231-6.8.0.1017-18770.000 X-TM-AS-Result: No--10.694-7.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--10.694-7.0-31-10;No--10.694-7.0-31-10 X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: No;No X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender: No;No X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 14:28:28 -0700 Cc: =?gb2312?B?wO7BrNS0?= Subject: [OPSAWG] Requirements for IP/MPLS network transmission interruption duration X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 15:26:18 -0000 This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00B2_01CD00A7.2FCB3F40 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" Greetings all, We have recently submitted a draft on transmission interruption duration (draft-fan-opsawg-transmission-interuption-00 ). We felt it necessary to make requirements for the interruption duration since there is no consensus on it yet in the industry. We primarily analyzed interruption criteria for softswitch voice, and research on LTE backhaul and other kinds of service scenarios has been in progress. We would like to hear from you feedbacks about this draft, e.g. whether or not there should be such requirements or methodology for the analysis. Any comment on it will be appreciated. The following is a brief introduction: Today's IP/MPLS network is widely used as a bearing network to carry diversified packet switched services. The transmission qualities of these services are closely related to the performance of bearing layers, as network failure, delay, congestion and other abnormities will inevitably bring about service interruption and user perception degradation. However, there is no consensus in the industry on transmission interruption for IP/MPLS network up to now. This memo studies relationships between service performance and transmission interruption duration in several scenarios, and is intended to reach a list of requirements for these interruption duration criteria. Best regards, Fan Peng ------=_NextPart_000_00B2_01CD00A7.2FCB3F40 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="gb2312"

Greetings all,

 

We have recently submitted a = draft on transmission interruption duration (draft-fan-opsawg-transmission-interuption-00). We felt it necessary to make requirements for the = interruption duration since there is no consensus on it yet in the = industry. We primarily analyzed interruption criteria for softswitch = voice, and research on LTE backhaul and other kinds of service scenarios = has been in progress.

 

We would like to hear from you feedbacks about this draft, = e.g. whether or not there should be such requirements or methodology for = the analysis. Any comment on it will be = appreciated.

 

The = following is a brief introduction:

 

Today's = IP/MPLS network is widely used as a bearing network to carry diversified = packet switched services. The transmission qualities of these services = are closely related to the performance of bearing layers, as network = failure, delay, congestion and other abnormities will inevitably bring = about service interruption and user perception degradation. However, = there is no consensus in the industry on transmission interruption for = IP/MPLS network up to now.  This memo studies relationships between = service performance and transmission interruption duration in several = scenarios, and is intended to reach a list of requirements for these = interruption duration criteria.

 

 

Best = regards,           = ;            =           =

 

Fan = Peng

------=_NextPart_000_00B2_01CD00A7.2FCB3F40-- From xuxiaohu@huawei.com Mon Mar 12 18:33:48 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F15321F877B; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 18:33:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.746 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.746 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.853, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HhGwtoCzLqnS; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 18:33:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com (szxga01-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.64]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E59C21F8735; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 18:33:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from huawei.com (szxga05-in [172.24.2.49]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0M0S00MPJUWT30@szxga05-in.huawei.com>; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 09:31:42 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxrg01-dlp.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0M0S003YTUWTZG@szxga05-in.huawei.com>; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 09:31:41 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxeml213-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.1.9-GA) with ESMTP id AHK35187; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 09:31:40 +0800 Received: from SZXEML438-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.72.61.73) by szxeml213-edg.china.huawei.com (172.24.2.30) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 09:30:47 +0800 Received: from SZXEML525-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.71]) by szxeml438-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.72.61.73]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 09:31:34 +0800 Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 01:31:32 +0000 From: Xuxiaohu X-Originating-IP: [10.108.4.99] To: "dc@ietf.org" , "opsawg@ietf.org" Message-id: <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE02CD2D33@szxeml525-mbx.china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-language: zh-CN Content-transfer-encoding: base64 Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Thread-topic: New Version Notification for draft-xu-virtual-subnet-07.txt Thread-index: AQHNADYOf/fuhjGgkEqSAHzLif7gnJZnaoOQ X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Cc: Susan Hares Subject: [OPSAWG] fwd: New Version Notification for draft-xu-virtual-subnet-07.txt X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 01:33:48 -0000 SGkgYWxsLA0KDQpBbiB1cGRhdGVkIHZlcnNpb24gb2YgVmlydHVhbCBTdWJuZXQgKGh0dHA6Ly90 b29scy5pZXRmLm9yZy9odG1sL2RyYWZ0LXh1LXZpcnR1YWwtc3VibmV0LTA3KSB3aGljaCBpcyBh IGhvc3Qgcm91dGUgYmFzZWQgZGF0YSBjZW50ZXIgaW50ZXJjb25uZWN0IHNvbHV0aW9uLCBoYXMg YmVlbiBzdWJtaXR0ZWQuIA0KDQpNYWpvciBjaGFuZ2VzIGluY2x1ZGU6IA0KMSkgYWRkIGEgZGV0 YWlsZWQgZGVzY3JpcHRpb24gb2YgY2xvdWQgZGF0YSBjZW50ZXIgaW50ZXJjb25uZWN0IHJlcXVp cmVtZW50cy4gDQoyKSBhZGQgYSBzZWN0aW9uIGRlc2NyaWJpbmcgaG93IHRvIHNjYWxlIHRoZSBG SUJzIGFuZCBSSUJzIG9mIFBFIHJvdXRlcnMgYW5kIGhvdyB0byBzY2FsZSB0aGUgTUFDIHRhYmxl cyBvZiBkYXRhIGNlbnRlciBzd2l0Y2hlcy4NCjMpIGFkZCBhIHNlY3Rpb24gZGVzY3JpYmluZyBo b3cgdG8gc2NhbGUgdGhlIEFSUCB0YWJsZXMgb2YgZGF0YSBjZW50ZXIgZ2F0ZXdheXMuDQo0KSBh ZGQgYSBuZXcgY28tYXV0aG9yLiANCjUpIGNoYW5nZSBpdHMgY2F0ZWdvcnkgZnJvbSBzdGFuZGFy ZCB0cmFjayB0byBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbmFsLg0KDQpBbnkgY29tbWVudHMgYW5kIHN1Z2dlc3Rpb25z IGFyZSB3ZWxjb21lLg0KDQpCZXN0IHJlZ2FyZHMsDQpYaWFvaHUNCg0KPiAtLS0tLemCruS7tuWO n+S7ti0tLS0tDQo+IOWPkeS7tuS6ujogaW50ZXJuZXQtZHJhZnRzQGlldGYub3JnIFttYWlsdG86 aW50ZXJuZXQtZHJhZnRzQGlldGYub3JnXQ0KPiDlj5HpgIHml7bpl7Q6IDIwMTLlubQz5pyIMTLm l6UgMTc6NTQNCj4g5pS25Lu25Lq6OiBYdXhpYW9odQ0KPiDmioTpgIE6IFN1c2FuIEhhcmVzDQo+ IOS4u+mimDogTmV3IFZlcnNpb24gTm90aWZpY2F0aW9uIGZvciBkcmFmdC14dS12aXJ0dWFsLXN1 Ym5ldC0wNy50eHQNCj4gDQo+IEEgbmV3IHZlcnNpb24gb2YgSS1ELCBkcmFmdC14dS12aXJ0dWFs LXN1Ym5ldC0wNy50eHQgaGFzIGJlZW4gc3VjY2Vzc2Z1bGx5DQo+IHN1Ym1pdHRlZCBieSBYaWFv aHUgWHUgYW5kIHBvc3RlZCB0byB0aGUgSUVURiByZXBvc2l0b3J5Lg0KPiANCj4gRmlsZW5hbWU6 CSBkcmFmdC14dS12aXJ0dWFsLXN1Ym5ldA0KPiBSZXZpc2lvbjoJIDA3DQo+IFRpdGxlOgkJIFZp cnR1YWwgU3VibmV0OiBBIEhvc3QgUm91dGUgYmFzZWQgU3VibmV0IEV4dGVuc2lvbiBTb2x1dGlv bg0KPiBDcmVhdGlvbiBkYXRlOgkgMjAxMi0wMy0xMg0KPiBXRyBJRDoJCSBJbmRpdmlkdWFsIFN1 Ym1pc3Npb24NCj4gTnVtYmVyIG9mIHBhZ2VzOiAxMw0KPiANCj4gQWJzdHJhY3Q6DQo+ICAgIFRo aXMgZG9jdW1lbnQgZGVzY3JpYmVzIGEgaG9zdCByb3V0ZSBiYXNlZCBzdWJuZXQgZXh0ZW5zaW9u IHNvbHV0aW9uDQo+ICAgIHJlZmVycmVkIHRvIGFzIFZpcnR1YWwgU3VibmV0LCB3aGljaCBtYWlu bHkgcmV1c2VzIGV4aXN0aW5nIEJHUC9NUExTDQo+ICAgIElQIFZQTiBbUkZDNDM2NF0gYW5kIEFS UCBwcm94eSBbUkZDOTI1XVtSRkMxMDI3XSB0ZWNobm9sb2dpZXMuDQo+ICAgIFZpcnR1YWwgU3Vi bmV0IHByb3ZpZGVzIGEgc2NhbGFibGUgYXBwcm9hY2ggZm9yIGludGVyY29ubmVjdGluZw0KPiAg ICBnZW9ncmFwaGljYWxseSBkaXNwZXJzZWQgY2xvdWQgZGF0YSBjZW50ZXJzLg0KPiANCj4gDQo+ IA0KPiANCj4gDQo+IFRoZSBJRVRGIFNlY3JldGFyaWF0DQo= From xuxiaohu@huawei.com Mon Mar 12 18:56:39 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06F1321F887B; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 18:56:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.815 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.815 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.784, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GSm+8BoUqVnK; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 18:56:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from szxga04-in.huawei.com (szxga04-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.67]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C48621F8861; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 18:56:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from huawei.com (szxga04-in [172.24.2.12]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0M0S00G2KVZOQ1@szxga04-in.huawei.com>; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 09:55:01 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0M0S00FBMVZLXO@szxga04-in.huawei.com>; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 09:55:00 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxeml212-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.1.9-GA) with ESMTP id AHU10620; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 09:55:00 +0800 Received: from SZXEML418-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.157) by szxeml212-edg.china.huawei.com (172.24.2.181) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 09:54:34 +0800 Received: from SZXEML525-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.71]) by szxeml418-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.157]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 09:54:58 +0800 Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 01:54:57 +0000 From: Xuxiaohu X-Originating-IP: [10.108.4.99] To: "dc@ietf.org" , "opsawg@ietf.org" Message-id: <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE02CD2D61@szxeml525-mbx.china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-language: zh-CN Content-transfer-encoding: base64 Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Thread-topic: time slot request//re: New Version Notification for draft-xu-virtual-subnet-07.txt Thread-index: AQHNALxLwtGCZ7C4GkqECzkHaly51A== X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Cc: Susan Hares Subject: [OPSAWG] time slot request//re: New Version Notification for draft-xu-virtual-subnet-07.txt X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 01:56:39 -0000 SGkgT1BTIFdHIGNvLWNoYWlycyBhbmQgQXJlYSBkaXJlY3RvcnMsDQoNCkkgd291bGQgbGlrZSB0 byByZXF1ZXN0IGEgMTUtbWluIHRpbWVzbG90IGZvciBwcmVzZW50aW5nIHRoaXMgZHJhZnQgb24g dGhlIE9QUyBXRyBhbmQgQXJlYSBqb2ludCBzZXNzaW9uLg0KDQpCZXN0IHJlZ2FyZHMsDQpYaWFv aHUNCg0KPiAtLS0tLemCruS7tuWOn+S7ti0tLS0tDQo+IOWPkeS7tuS6ujogWHV4aWFvaHUNCj4g 5Y+R6YCB5pe26Ze0OiAyMDEy5bm0M+aciDEz5pelIDk6MzENCj4g5pS25Lu25Lq6OiBkY0BpZXRm Lm9yZzsgJ29wc2F3Z0BpZXRmLm9yZycNCj4g5oqE6YCBOiAnU3VzYW4gSGFyZXMnDQo+IOS4u+mi mDogZndkOiBOZXcgVmVyc2lvbiBOb3RpZmljYXRpb24gZm9yIGRyYWZ0LXh1LXZpcnR1YWwtc3Vi bmV0LTA3LnR4dA0KPiANCj4gSGkgYWxsLA0KPiANCj4gQW4gdXBkYXRlZCB2ZXJzaW9uIG9mIFZp cnR1YWwgU3VibmV0DQo+IChodHRwOi8vdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaHRtbC9kcmFmdC14dS12aXJ0 dWFsLXN1Ym5ldC0wNykgd2hpY2ggaXMgYSBob3N0IHJvdXRlDQo+IGJhc2VkIGRhdGEgY2VudGVy IGludGVyY29ubmVjdCBzb2x1dGlvbiwgaGFzIGJlZW4gc3VibWl0dGVkLg0KPiANCj4gTWFqb3Ig Y2hhbmdlcyBpbmNsdWRlOg0KPiAxKSBhZGQgYSBkZXRhaWxlZCBkZXNjcmlwdGlvbiBvZiBjbG91 ZCBkYXRhIGNlbnRlciBpbnRlcmNvbm5lY3QgcmVxdWlyZW1lbnRzLg0KPiAyKSBhZGQgYSBzZWN0 aW9uIGRlc2NyaWJpbmcgaG93IHRvIHNjYWxlIHRoZSBGSUJzIGFuZCBSSUJzIG9mIFBFIHJvdXRl cnMgYW5kDQo+IGhvdyB0byBzY2FsZSB0aGUgTUFDIHRhYmxlcyBvZiBkYXRhIGNlbnRlciBzd2l0 Y2hlcy4NCj4gMykgYWRkIGEgc2VjdGlvbiBkZXNjcmliaW5nIGhvdyB0byBzY2FsZSB0aGUgQVJQ IHRhYmxlcyBvZiBkYXRhIGNlbnRlcg0KPiBnYXRld2F5cy4NCj4gNCkgYWRkIGEgbmV3IGNvLWF1 dGhvci4NCj4gNSkgY2hhbmdlIGl0cyBjYXRlZ29yeSBmcm9tIHN0YW5kYXJkIHRyYWNrIHRvIGlu Zm9ybWF0aW9uYWwuDQo+IA0KPiBBbnkgY29tbWVudHMgYW5kIHN1Z2dlc3Rpb25zIGFyZSB3ZWxj b21lLg0KPiANCj4gQmVzdCByZWdhcmRzLA0KPiBYaWFvaHUNCj4gDQo+ID4gLS0tLS3pgq7ku7bl jp/ku7YtLS0tLQ0KPiA+IOWPkeS7tuS6ujogaW50ZXJuZXQtZHJhZnRzQGlldGYub3JnIFttYWls dG86aW50ZXJuZXQtZHJhZnRzQGlldGYub3JnXQ0KPiA+IOWPkemAgeaXtumXtDogMjAxMuW5tDPm nIgxMuaXpSAxNzo1NA0KPiA+IOaUtuS7tuS6ujogWHV4aWFvaHUNCj4gPiDmioTpgIE6IFN1c2Fu IEhhcmVzDQo+ID4g5Li76aKYOiBOZXcgVmVyc2lvbiBOb3RpZmljYXRpb24gZm9yIGRyYWZ0LXh1 LXZpcnR1YWwtc3VibmV0LTA3LnR4dA0KPiA+DQo+ID4gQSBuZXcgdmVyc2lvbiBvZiBJLUQsIGRy YWZ0LXh1LXZpcnR1YWwtc3VibmV0LTA3LnR4dCBoYXMgYmVlbiBzdWNjZXNzZnVsbHkNCj4gPiBz dWJtaXR0ZWQgYnkgWGlhb2h1IFh1IGFuZCBwb3N0ZWQgdG8gdGhlIElFVEYgcmVwb3NpdG9yeS4N Cj4gPg0KPiA+IEZpbGVuYW1lOgkgZHJhZnQteHUtdmlydHVhbC1zdWJuZXQNCj4gPiBSZXZpc2lv bjoJIDA3DQo+ID4gVGl0bGU6CQkgVmlydHVhbCBTdWJuZXQ6IEEgSG9zdCBSb3V0ZSBiYXNlZCBT dWJuZXQgRXh0ZW5zaW9uIFNvbHV0aW9uDQo+ID4gQ3JlYXRpb24gZGF0ZToJIDIwMTItMDMtMTIN Cj4gPiBXRyBJRDoJCSBJbmRpdmlkdWFsIFN1Ym1pc3Npb24NCj4gPiBOdW1iZXIgb2YgcGFnZXM6 IDEzDQo+ID4NCj4gPiBBYnN0cmFjdDoNCj4gPiAgICBUaGlzIGRvY3VtZW50IGRlc2NyaWJlcyBh IGhvc3Qgcm91dGUgYmFzZWQgc3VibmV0IGV4dGVuc2lvbiBzb2x1dGlvbg0KPiA+ICAgIHJlZmVy cmVkIHRvIGFzIFZpcnR1YWwgU3VibmV0LCB3aGljaCBtYWlubHkgcmV1c2VzIGV4aXN0aW5nIEJH UC9NUExTDQo+ID4gICAgSVAgVlBOIFtSRkM0MzY0XSBhbmQgQVJQIHByb3h5IFtSRkM5MjVdW1JG QzEwMjddIHRlY2hub2xvZ2llcy4NCj4gPiAgICBWaXJ0dWFsIFN1Ym5ldCBwcm92aWRlcyBhIHNj YWxhYmxlIGFwcHJvYWNoIGZvciBpbnRlcmNvbm5lY3RpbmcNCj4gPiAgICBnZW9ncmFwaGljYWxs eSBkaXNwZXJzZWQgY2xvdWQgZGF0YSBjZW50ZXJzLg0KPiA+DQo+ID4NCj4gPg0KPiA+DQo+ID4N Cj4gPiBUaGUgSUVURiBTZWNyZXRhcmlhdA0K From dromasca@avaya.com Tue Mar 13 03:50:52 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B702A21F8781 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 03:50:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.366 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.366 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.233, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nZEX63xnbEqB for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 03:50:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DDE621F86E2 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 03:50:47 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgIFAJIkX0+HCzI1/2dsb2JhbABDhTevLXyBB4IJAQEBAQMSEQ0ERQwGAQgNAQMEAQEDAgYGDAsBAgIDAUQHAQEFBAEEEwgBGYdoC6BmiXmSJIEvjiAzYwSbWooYgmaBWw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,576,1325480400"; d="scan'208";a="336412646" Received: from unknown (HELO p-us1-erheast.us1.avaya.com) ([135.11.50.53]) by co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 13 Mar 2012 06:50:46 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.13]) by p-us1-erheast-out.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 13 Mar 2012 06:35:27 -0400 x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 11:50:44 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Adrian Farrel's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds-06:(with DISCUSS and COMMENT) Thread-Index: Ac0AhcX2kFmL6it7Q/+T7iCiJK4PEwAgTMmw From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Benoit Claise" , "Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)" Cc: opsawg@ietf.org Subject: [OPSAWG] FW: Adrian Farrel's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds-06:(with DISCUSS and COMMENT) X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 10:50:52 -0000 TWVobWV0IGFuZCBCZW5vaXQsDQoNClBsZWFzZSBhZGRyZXNzIHRoZSBpc3N1ZXMgcmFpc2VkIGJ5 IEFkcmlhbiBpbiBoaXMgRElTQ1VTUy4NCg0KVGhhbmtzIGFuZCBSZWdhcmRzLA0KDQpEYW4NCg0K DQoNCg0KLS0tLS1PcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdlLS0tLS0NCkZyb206IGllc2ctYm91bmNlc0BpZXRm Lm9yZyBbbWFpbHRvOmllc2ctYm91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZ10gT24gQmVoYWxmIE9mIEFkcmlhbiBG YXJyZWwNClNlbnQ6IE1vbmRheSwgTWFyY2ggMTIsIDIwMTIgOToyNCBQTQ0KVG86IFRoZSBJRVNH DQpDYzogZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1vcHNhd2ctbWFuYWdlbWVudC1zdGRzQHRvb2xzLmlldGYub3JnOyBv cHNhd2ctY2hhaXJzQHRvb2xzLmlldGYub3JnDQpTdWJqZWN0OiBBZHJpYW4gRmFycmVsJ3MgRGlz Y3VzcyBvbiBkcmFmdC1pZXRmLW9wc2F3Zy1tYW5hZ2VtZW50LXN0ZHMtMDY6KHdpdGggRElTQ1VT UyBhbmQgQ09NTUVOVCkNCg0KQWRyaWFuIEZhcnJlbCBoYXMgZW50ZXJlZCB0aGUgZm9sbG93aW5n IGJhbGxvdCBwb3NpdGlvbiBmb3INCmRyYWZ0LWlldGYtb3BzYXdnLW1hbmFnZW1lbnQtc3Rkcy0w NjogRGlzY3Vzcw0KDQpXaGVuIHJlc3BvbmRpbmcsIHBsZWFzZSBrZWVwIHRoZSBzdWJqZWN0IGxp bmUgaW50YWN0IGFuZCByZXBseSB0byBhbGwNCmVtYWlsIGFkZHJlc3NlcyBpbmNsdWRlZCBpbiB0 aGUgVG8gYW5kIENDIGxpbmVzLiAoRmVlbCBmcmVlIHRvIGN1dCB0aGlzDQppbnRyb2R1Y3Rvcnkg cGFyYWdyYXBoLCBob3dldmVyLikNCg0KUGxlYXNlIHJlZmVyIHRvIGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5v cmcvaWVzZy9zdGF0ZW1lbnQvZGlzY3Vzcy1jcml0ZXJpYS5odG1sDQpmb3IgbW9yZSBpbmZvcm1h dGlvbiBhYm91dCBJRVNHIERJU0NVU1MgYW5kIENPTU1FTlQgcG9zaXRpb25zLg0KDQoNCg0KLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLQ0KRElTQ1VTUzoNCi0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0NCg0KSSBoYWQgc29tZSBkaWZmaWN1 bHR5IGRldGVybWluaW5nIHdoYXQgYXJlICJJRVRGIG5ldHdvcmsgbWFuYWdlbWVudA0Kc3RhbmRh cmRzIi4NCg0KVGhlIEludHJvZHVjdGlvbiBoZWxwZnVsbHkgZXhwbGFpbnMgdGhhdCAiT0FNIHRl Y2hub2xvZ2llcyBvbiB0aGUgZGF0YS0NCnBhdGgiIGFyZSBub3QgY292ZXJlZC4gSSB0aGluayB0 aGlzIG1pZ2h0IHVzZWZ1bGx5IGJlIG1lbnRpb25lZCBpbiB0aGUNCkFic3RyYWN0Lg0KDQotLS0N Cg0KSSBmb3VuZCB0aGUgbGlzdHMgb2YgZXhpc3RpbmcgTUlCIG1vZHVsZXMgaW4gU2VjdGlvbiA0 LjEgYSBiaXQgaGl0IGFuZA0KbWlzcy4NCg0KRm9yIGV4YW1wbGUsIGluIFNlY3Rpb24gNC4xLjIg b25seSBvbmUgb2YgdGUgR01QTFMgTUlCIG1vZHVsZSBSRkNzIGlzDQpsaXN0ZWQuIFRoaXMgaXMg a2luZCBvZiAiYnkgZXhhbXBsZSIgb2YgYSBkYXRhIHBsYW5lIG1vZGVsLCBzbyBpcw0KcHJvYmFi bHkgT0ssIGJ1dCB3aHkgbm90IG1lbnRpb24gdGhlIE1JQiBtb2R1bGVzIGZvciB0aGUgR01QTFMg Y29udHJvbA0KcGxhbmUuDQoNCkluIFNlY3Rpb24gNC4xLjMgSSB3b3VsZCBoYXZlIGV4cGVjdGVk IHRvIHNlZSBkaXNjdXNzaW9uIG9mIGJvdGggdGhlDQpNUExTIGZvcndhcmRpbmcgcGxhbmUsIGFu ZCBzb21lIG9mIHRoZSBNUExTIGNvbnRyb2wgcGxhbmUgcHJvdGNvbHMuDQpDb252ZXJzZWx5LCBJ IGZvdW5kIGl0IG9mZi1wdXRpbmcgdGhhdCBTZWN0aW9uIDQuMS4zIGx1bXBzIHRvZ2V0aGVyDQp0 aGUgcm91dGluZyBwcm90b2NvbHMgd2l0aCB0aGUgSVAgZm9yd2FyZGluZyBwbGFuZS4NCg0KTG9v a2luZyBhdCBTZWN0aW9uIDQuMSBhcyBhIHdob2xlLCBJIHdvbmRlcmVkIHdoZXRoZXIgeW91IHJl YWxseSB3YW50IHRvDQplbnVtZXJhdGUgdGhlIGV4aXN0aW5nIE1JQiBtb2R1bGVzIGZvciBhbGwg SUVURiBwcm90b2NvbHMuIFRoaXMgc2VlbXMNCmxpa2UgYSB0aGFua2xlc3MgdGFzayBhbmQgb25l IHRoYXQgaXMgaGFyZCB0byBrZWVwIGNvbXBsZXRlIHVubGVzcyB5b3UNCmdvIHRvIHRoZSBPSUQg dHJlZSAoaW4gSUFOQSkgYW5kIG1ha2UgYSBmdWxsIGxpc3QuDQoNCk9uIHRoZSBvdGhlciBoYW5k LCB0aGVyZSBhcmUgc29tZSB0ZWNobm9sb2d5LXNwZWNpZmljICJNSUIgb3ZlcnZpZXciDQpkb2N1 bWVudHMgdGhhdCBtaWdodCBwcm92aWRlIHVzZWZ1bCB0aGluZ3MgdG8gcG9pbnQgYXQuIEZvciBl eGFtcGxlOg0KLSBSRkMgNDIyMQ0KLSBkcmFmdC1pZXRmLW1wbHMtdHAtbWliLW1hbmFnZW1lbnQt b3ZlcnZpZXcNCg0KSSdtIGZpbmRpbmcgdGhpcyBhIGhhcmQgb25lIHRvIG1ha2UgYWN0aW9uYWJs ZSEgSG93IGFib3V0Li4uDQoNCiAgUGxlYXNlIHVzZSB0aGUgT0lEIHRyZWUgaW4gdGhlIElBTkEg cmVnaXN0cnkgdG8gZW5zdXJlIHRoYXQgeW91IGhhdmUNCiAgbm90IGxlZnQgb3V0IGFueSBNSUIg bW9kdWxlcyBmb3Iga2V5IElFVEYgcHJvdG9jb2xzLg0KDQogIFBsZWFzZSBjb25zaWRlciBpbmNs dWRpbmcgcmVmZXJlbmNlcyB0byBSRkMgNDIyMSBhbmQgZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1tcGxzLQ0KICB0cC1t aWItbWFuYWdlbWVudC1vdmVydmlldy4NCg0KWW91IG1pZ2h0IGFsc28gZmluZCBpdCBiZW5lZmlj aWFsIHRvIHNwbGl0IDQuMSBpbnRvIGZvcndhcmRpbmcgcGxhbmUNCm1hbmFnZW1lbnQgYW5kIGNv bnRyb2wgcHJvdG9jb2wgbWFuYWdlbWVudC4NCg0KLS0tDQoNClJhdGhlciB0aGFuIHJlbW92aW5n IFNlY3Rpb24gNiwgSSB0aGluayB5b3Ugc2hvdWxkIHVzZSBpdCB0byBzdW1tYXJpc2UNCnRoZSBz ZWN1aXJ0eSBpc3N1ZXMgb2YgbmV0d29yayBtYW5hZ2VtZW50LCBwb2ludCB0byB0aGUgc2VjdGlv bnMgb2YgdGhpcw0KZG9jdW1lbnQgdGhhdCBkaXNjdXNzIHNlY3VyaXR5LCBhbmQgcmVmZXJlbmNl IG90aGVyIGRvY3VtZW50cyBzcGVjaWZpYw0KdG8gdGhlIHNlY3VyaXR5IG9mIG5ldHdvcmsgbWFu YWdlbWVudC4NCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICANClRoaXMgbWlnaHQgcG9pbnQgdG8gdGhlIGZhY3QgdGhhdCBzZWN1cml0eSBkaXNjdXNzaW9u cyBhcmUgcGF0Y2h5IGluIA0KdGhpcyBkb2N1bWVudC4gMi4xLjQgaXMgYSBnb29kIGRldGFpbGVk IGNvdmVyIG9mIFNOTVAgc2VjdXJpdHksIDIuMiANCmJyaWVmbHkgbWVudGlvbnMgaG93IHRvIHNl Y3VyZSBzeXNsb2csIGFuZCAyLjMgaGFzIGEgcmF0aGVyIHNjYW50eSANCm1lbnRpb24gb2Ygc2Vj dXJpdHkgZm9yIGlwZml4LiBXaHkgaXMgdGhlcmUgbm90IHNpbWlsYXIgZGlzY3Vzc2lvbiBvZg0K aG93IHRvIHNlY3VyZSBuZXRjb25mPw0KDQpTaW1pbGFybHksIGluIHNlY3Rpb24gMyB0aGVyZSBp cyBtZW50aW9uIG9mIHNlY3VyaXR5IGZvciBSQURJVVMsIA0KRElBTUVURVIsIENBUFdBUCwgQU5D UCwgYW5kIEFDQVAsIGJ1dCBub3QgZm9yIERIQ1AsIEJPT1RQLCB0aGUgdmFyaW91cw0KYXV0b2Nv bmYgb3B0aW9ucywgQ09QUywgYW5kIFhDQVAuDQoNCg0KLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLQ0KQ09NTUVOVDoN Ci0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0NCg0KSSB0aGluayB0aGF0IGEgZ2VuZXJhbCBjaGFuZ2Ugb2Ygcy9NSUIv TUlCIG1vZHVsZS8gaXMgbmVlZGVkLg0KDQoNCg== From sob@harvard.edu Tue Mar 13 17:38:56 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A2B421F854A for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 17:38:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.11 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.11 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.489, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Zov9+mtAMHeg for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 17:38:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ackroyd.harvard.edu (ackroyd.harvard.edu [128.103.208.29]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1303B21F8543 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 17:38:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exchange.university.harvard.edu (unknown [10.35.2.151]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ackroyd.harvard.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EED7E9200 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 20:38:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ENTWHUBT0000001.university.harvard.edu (10.32.8.202) by ENTWEDGE0000000.university.harvard.edu (10.35.2.151) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 20:38:11 -0400 Received: from ENTWEXMB0000004.university.harvard.edu ([169.254.3.212]) by ENTWHUBT0000001.university.harvard.edu ([10.32.8.202]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 20:38:14 -0400 From: "Bradner, Scott" To: "opsawg@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: raft-weil-shared-transition-space-request/ Thread-Index: AQHNAXrIJCAyf7BT6UWoLCxW9L+AbA== Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 00:38:33 +0000 Message-ID: <8566F117-749A-402C-B6D5-DA9FFB6AED36@harvard.edu> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [136.248.127.162] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <38D8925A9F0C9744814CB8E8C18DCF39@Exchange.university.harvard.edu> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [OPSAWG] raft-weil-shared-transition-space-request/ X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 00:38:56 -0000 fyi - the address block has been registered see http://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-100-64-0-0-1/pft thanks to all who worked so hard on this Scott From cdl@asgaard.org Tue Mar 13 18:31:58 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27E1F21E802D for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 18:31:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.549 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rbw3nRQrxixE for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 18:31:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asgaard.org (odin.asgaard.org [204.29.151.68]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6DF911E8073 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 18:31:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by asgaard.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B163DCAB930; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 01:31:52 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at asgaard.org Received: from asgaard.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (odin.asgaard.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JLWruU59yVGd; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 01:31:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fenrir.asgaard.org (50-76-34-185-ip-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.76.34.185]) by asgaard.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 678AECAB925; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 01:31:51 +0000 (UTC) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 From: Christopher LILJENSTOLPE In-Reply-To: <8566F117-749A-402C-B6D5-DA9FFB6AED36@harvard.edu> Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 18:31:49 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <274BBDCA-9F45-4C7B-840A-D5664D3D8B45@asgaard.org> References: <8566F117-749A-402C-B6D5-DA9FFB6AED36@harvard.edu> To: "Bradner, Scott" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257) Cc: "opsawg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] raft-weil-shared-transition-space-request/ X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 01:31:58 -0000 Halaluja! Chris On 13Mar2012, at 17.38, Bradner, Scott wrote: > fyi - the address block has been registered >=20 > see > http://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-100-64-0-0-1/pft >=20 > thanks to all who worked so hard on this >=20 > Scott > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > OPSAWG@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg -- =20 =E6=9D=8E=E6=9F=AF=E7=9D=BF Check my PGP key here: https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.asc Current vCard here: https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.vcf Check my calendar availability: https://tungle.me/cdl From sm@elandsys.com Tue Mar 13 16:28:00 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8828E21E806D; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 16:28:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HyZV+H9BxOUs; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 16:27:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C868521E805E; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 16:27:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.233.203]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q2DNRgwI007319 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 13 Mar 2012 16:27:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1331681276; i=@gmail.com; bh=8r+MZzKEhn0mdo4vMYrM6fIj0t7S1oU4J+76EScUyJQ=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=AlABZ4J0OndNLPv8UDaj5wpyfojGeKRnDmd6XzDiah95L59eM1JW48ZdO2uqEYjSa m9CCDYSitqmCYfFuVRPJX3DFDvatQvQ/bYGdBlusyGNwxco0iUJ41zOoTkSszAqPzs lj+lpEMkfPG5krB8h8tQyFhiE14abzogfpHD5Uh0= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120313162357.0a0e5350@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 16:27:34 -0700 To: apps-discuss@ietf.org From: Lisa Dusseault (by way of S Moonesamy ) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 18:32:44 -0700 Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds.all@tools.ietf.org, opsawg@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, Lisa Dusseault Subject: [OPSAWG] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds-05 X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 23:28:00 -0000 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Lisa Dusseault To: apps-review@ietf.org, draft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds.all@tools.ietf.org Cc: IESG Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 16:19:54 -0700 Subject: APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds-05 I have been selected as the Applications Area Directorate reviewer for this draft (for background on appsdir, please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/ApplicationsAreaDirectorate). Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. Document: draft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds-05 Title: An Overview of the IETF Network Management Standards Reviewer: Lisa Dusseault Review Date: March 13, 2012 Summary: Document is probably a useful contribution The goal of this document sounds great, and it seems there is some need for a survey or overview of network management standards. Some sections achieve the document's goals with concise, clear summaries and pointers to outside work. Other sections of the document suffer from meaningless (e.g. circular or jargon-laden) summaries and awkward explanations, but at least the pointers will still be useful. I have some concerns about whether the document is comprehensive, because a survey is most useful when it really points to all the prior and relevant work at least in brief. While I am not in a position to notice all the places where the document may have holes in its comprehensiveness, I did note that currently active work was not consistently covered. The document does not mention or refer to ARMD, BMWG or benchmarking, GROW or BGP Monitoring. I do not know which of these Ops area WGs are important or actively making progress, but to an Ops outsider they all seem relevant. It's not as if the document does not cover active work: the document goes into some detail explaining not only the purpose of energy management work going on in the IETF but also some of the challenges of that work (appendix B). Missing other active WGs' topics seems odd. Organizational: Section 3.9 describes ACAP. Either ACAP belongs in the general purpose protocols (section 2) or another section entirely (perhaps together with XCAP in a section on application-layer configuration protocols). In any case, ACAP has been largely superseded by other work, which would be useful for readers of this document to know. Section 3.10 describes XCAP. It is similar to ACAP in the general scope of its ambition. Section 3.2 doesn't seem to fit in Section 3. I understand Section 3 to be about application-focused network management protocols and mechanisms, whereas section 3.2 does not describe any specific protocols or mechanisms, but rather operational guidance. Nits (note that generally the document would be much clearer if it had a good grammatical editorial pass): Grammatical error: "As far as valuable Best Current Practice (BCP) documents are referenced." Grammatical or cut-and-paste error: - "a management protocol used to convey management information between the SNMP entities, and management information." Grammatical error: "As such following standards build up the basis of the current SNMP Management Framework" Grammatical error: " Requirements to such a monitoring on the application level include measuring signaling quality" Grammatical error: " YANG allows to express constraints on data models by means of type restrictions and XPATH 1.0 [XPATH] expressions." Confusing: "One example SDO using DIAMETER extensively is 3GPP (e.g. 3GPP 'IP Multimedia Subsystem' (IMS) uses DIAMETER based interfaces (e.g. Cx) [3GPPIMS])." -- looks like the Cx is either an error or can be cut, Cx is not referred to anywhere else in the document Grammatical or typo: " The main goal of this protocol is to configure and manage access equipments and allow them to report information" (plural 'equipments' is not used, fix also elsewhere in doc) Grammatical: " The following subsections aim to guide the reader for the fast selection of the management standard in interest" Grammatical: " due to several factors including the rising and fluctuating energy costs,", extra 'the' _______________________________________________ appsdir mailing list appsdir@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/appsdir From sob@sobco.com Tue Mar 13 17:37:25 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EA3A11E8073 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 17:37:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.435 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.435 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.929, BAYES_20=-0.74, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GOZkaj+VB9An for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 17:37:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sobco.sobco.com (unknown [136.248.127.164]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3640621F853D for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 17:37:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sobco.sobco.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CCAD27E63E7 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 20:37:10 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at sobco.com Received: from sobco.sobco.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (sobco.sobco.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bzjU1YNNwH3L for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 20:37:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from golem.sobco.com (golem.sobco.com [136.248.127.162]) by sobco.sobco.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 1B8B727E63D4 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 20:37:08 -0400 (EDT) From: Scott O Bradner Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 20:37:06 -0400 Message-Id: <0E83CF43-698D-41D8-A485-6B7709B28855@sobco.com> To: opsawg@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 18:32:44 -0700 Subject: [OPSAWG] draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request/ X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 00:37:25 -0000 fyi - the address block has been registered see http://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-100-64-0-0-1/pft thanks to all who worked so hard on this Scott From owen@delong.com Tue Mar 13 20:21:40 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFE3E21E8026 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 20:21:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z7QC0iSWRdck for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 20:21:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from owen.delong.com (owen.delong.com [IPv6:2620:0:930::200:2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0A8421E8017 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 20:21:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6:2620::930:0:ca2a:14ff:fe3e:d024] ([IPv6:2620:0:930:0:ca2a:14ff:fe3e:d024]) (authenticated bits=0) by owen.delong.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id q2E3HI5H010241 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 13 Mar 2012 20:17:18 -0700 X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.3 owen.delong.com q2E3HI5H010241 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=delong.com; s=mail; t=1331695039; bh=YK6tj4H1O6R70kaC4lel95DMJkw=; h=Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:References:To; b=zCzV+lwl+GJskzImnG/4nrHFH+TfCgjJmSuZVtC+Vki73sIeLrrJiODJXyTe/KP+s NfjvR+GpQ6gp6fnYmjvB7OvimDW+71ZI0O0+6pltdC8QVuP6x0SxuYDrZ/uVoM8Ima oXglESdRwxp0jYzuKfqVezoa2EpxKUON4D/6O49g= Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Owen DeLong In-Reply-To: <0E83CF43-698D-41D8-A485-6B7709B28855@sobco.com> Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 20:17:18 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <279F34BC-3279-491A-B58C-783CF67BA93C@delong.com> References: <0E83CF43-698D-41D8-A485-6B7709B28855@sobco.com> To: Scott O Bradner X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257) X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH authentication, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (owen.delong.com [IPv6:2620:0:930::200:2]); Tue, 13 Mar 2012 20:17:19 -0700 (PDT) Cc: opsawg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request/ X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 03:21:40 -0000 Yay!!!! Owen On Mar 13, 2012, at 5:37 PM, Scott O Bradner wrote: > fyi - the address block has been registered > > see > http://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-100-64-0-0-1/pft > > thanks to all who worked so hard on this > > Scott > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > OPSAWG@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg From mehmet.ersue@nsn.com Wed Mar 14 03:08:57 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A54A021F855F; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 03:08:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.527 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.527 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.072, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XRwjMMJl6E+d; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 03:08:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from demumfd002.nsn-inter.net (demumfd002.nsn-inter.net [93.183.12.31]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5F7A21F8577; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 03:08:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from demuprx017.emea.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.129.56]) by demumfd002.nsn-inter.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id q2EA8ocY027159 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 14 Mar 2012 11:08:50 +0100 Received: from demuexc023.nsn-intra.net (demuexc023.nsn-intra.net [10.150.128.36]) by demuprx017.emea.nsn-intra.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id q2EA8oHD010668; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 11:08:50 +0100 Received: from DEMUEXC006.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.128.18]) by demuexc023.nsn-intra.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 14 Mar 2012 11:08:50 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 11:08:49 +0100 Message-ID: <80A0822C5E9A4440A5117C2F4CD36A640387B5FB@DEMUEXC006.nsn-intra.net> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120313162357.0a0e5350@elandnews.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review ofdraft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds-05 Thread-Index: Ac0BcPOpGAgb6FbkSSSwSizJ4wu7cgAV4xfg References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120313162357.0a0e5350@elandnews.com> From: "Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)" To: "Lisa Dusseault" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Mar 2012 10:08:50.0751 (UTC) FILETIME=[74297CF0:01CD01CA] X-purgate-type: clean X-purgate-Ad: Categorized by eleven eXpurgate (R) http://www.eleven.de X-purgate: clean X-purgate: This mail is considered clean (visit http://www.eleven.de for further information) X-purgate-size: 3263 X-purgate-ID: 151667::1331719731-000033AC-98CC59D1/0-0/0-0 Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds.all@tools.ietf.org, opsawg@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review ofdraft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds-05 X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 10:08:57 -0000 Dear Lisa, thank you for your kind comments. > I did note that currently active work was not consistently covered. =20 I think it has been already stated in the document that the document=20 aims to give an overview of "existing" standards. Only in a few cases=20 (if it is near to publication) ongoing work has been mentioned. > Organizational: >=20 > Section 3.9 describes ACAP. Either ACAP belongs in the general > purpose protocols (section 2) or another section entirely (perhaps > together with XCAP in a section on application-layer configuration > protocols). In any case, ACAP has been largely superseded by other > work, which would be useful for readers of this document to know. We had in an earlier version a specific section for application layer=20 protocols. The WG decided to resolve this with the aim to get the=20 structure more flat. =20 > Section 3.10 describes XCAP. It is similar to ACAP in the general > scope of its ambition. >=20 > Section 3.2 doesn't seem to fit in Section 3. I understand Section 3 > to be about application-focused network management protocols and > mechanisms, whereas section 3.2 does not describe any specific > protocols or mechanisms, but rather operational guidance. As the title says Section 3 is not about application-focused management=20 protocols. It is about a list of protocols and mechanisms with different focus. =20 I will take care of the nits below as they are particularly important to me. Cheers, Mehmet > Nits (note that generally the document would be much clearer if it had > a good grammatical editorial pass): >=20 > Grammatical error: > "As far as valuable Best Current > Practice (BCP) documents are referenced." >=20 > Grammatical or cut-and-paste error: > - "a management protocol used to convey management information > between the SNMP entities, and management information." >=20 > Grammatical error: > "As such following standards build up the basis of the current SNMP > Management Framework" >=20 > Grammatical error: " Requirements to such a monitoring on the application > level include measuring signaling quality" >=20 > Grammatical error: " YANG allows to express constraints on data > models by means of type > restrictions and XPATH 1.0 [XPATH] expressions." >=20 >=20 > Confusing: "One example SDO using > DIAMETER extensively is 3GPP (e.g. 3GPP 'IP Multimedia Subsystem' > (IMS) uses DIAMETER based interfaces (e.g. Cx) [3GPPIMS])." > -- looks like the Cx is either an error or can be > cut, Cx is not > referred to anywhere else in the document >=20 > Grammatical or typo: " The main goal of this protocol is to configure > and manage access > equipments and allow them to report information" > (plural 'equipments' is not used, fix also elsewhere in doc) >=20 > Grammatical: " The following subsections aim to guide the reader for the fast > selection of the management standard in interest" >=20 > Grammatical: " due to several factors including the rising and > fluctuating energy costs,", extra 'the' From dromasca@avaya.com Wed Mar 14 03:53:10 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EAE221E8036; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 03:53:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.367 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.367 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.232, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hfZ-Jb-ZAyYC; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 03:53:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com (de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.71.100]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0281A21E8026; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 03:53:08 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAEJ3YE/GmAcF/2dsb2JhbABDthmBB4IJAQEBAQIBEgYYCj8FBwQCAQgNCA0GDAsBBgFFEQEBBAESCBqHYwWgAJwkkBVjBJtjihmCZw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,583,1325480400"; d="scan'208";a="297063911" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 14 Mar 2012 06:52:58 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.13]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 14 Mar 2012 06:45:03 -0400 x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 11:52:56 +0100 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120313162357.0a0e5350@elandnews.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review ofdraft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds-05 Thread-Index: Ac0BcPWBoWeyOaiCSH+zI4qt0Z5NdAAXoEkQ References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120313162357.0a0e5350@elandnews.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Lisa Dusseault" , Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds.all@tools.ietf.org, opsawg@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review ofdraft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds-05 X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 10:53:10 -0000 Hi Lisa, Thank you for your review.=20 Please allow me to respond to one of your comments.=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:apps-discuss- > bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault > The goal of this document sounds great, and it seems there is some > need for a survey or overview of network management standards. Some > sections achieve the document's goals with concise, clear summaries > and pointers to outside work. Other sections of the document suffer > from meaningless (e.g. circular or jargon-laden) summaries and awkward > explanations, but at least the pointers will still be useful. I have > some concerns about whether the document is comprehensive, because a > survey is most useful when it really points to all the prior and > relevant work at least in brief. >=20 > While I am not in a position to notice all the places where the > document may have holes in its comprehensiveness, I did note that > currently active work was not consistently covered. The document does > not mention or refer to ARMD, BMWG or benchmarking, GROW or BGP > Monitoring. I do not know which of these Ops area WGs are important > or actively making progress, but to an Ops outsider they all seem > relevant. It's not as if the document does not cover active work: the > document goes into some detail explaining not only the purpose of > energy management work going on in the IETF but also some of the > challenges of that work (appendix B). Missing other active WGs' > topics seems odd. >=20 [[DR]] As you probably know well the OPS Area activities covers Operations and Management. The scope of this document is as you correctly point providing an overview of network management standards. The WGs you mention - ARMD, BMWG, GROW - belong all to the operational part of the area, none develops network management standards (protocols or data models). BGP monitoring is realized via a number of means, two of them are mentioned in the document (the data model in RFC 4273 in section 4.1.3 and the IPFIX IEs in section 4.2.3).=20 Regards, Dan =20 From ietfc@btconnect.com Fri Mar 16 03:43:48 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A671621F857F; Fri, 16 Mar 2012 03:43:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.113 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.113 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.486, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ml0YsfPxwOCr; Fri, 16 Mar 2012 03:43:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.btconnect.com (c2bthomr10.btconnect.com [213.123.20.128]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2406621F8581; Fri, 16 Mar 2012 03:43:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from host86-151-41-215.range86-151.btcentralplus.com (HELO pc6) ([86.151.41.215]) by c2bthomr10.btconnect.com with SMTP id GTO68142; Fri, 16 Mar 2012 10:43:21 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <01be01cd0359$19b557e0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> From: "t.petch" To: "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" , "Lisa Dusseault" , References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120313162357.0a0e5350@elandnews.com> Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 10:42:23 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Mirapoint-IP-Reputation: reputation=Fair-1, source=Queried, refid=tid=0001.0A0B0303.4F631948.00A0, actions=tag X-Junkmail-Premium-Raw: score=8/50, refid=2.7.2:2012.3.16.101221:17:8.317, ip=86.151.41.215, rules=__HAS_MSGID, __OUTLOOK_MSGID_1, __SANE_MSGID, __TO_MALFORMED_2, __MULTIPLE_RCPTS_CC_X2, __BOUNCE_CHALLENGE_SUBJ, __BOUNCE_NDR_SUBJ_EXEMPT, __MIME_VERSION, __CT, CT_TP_8859_1, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN, __CTE, __HAS_X_PRIORITY, __HAS_MSMAIL_PRI, __HAS_X_MAILER, USER_AGENT_OE, __OUTLOOK_MUA_1, __USER_AGENT_MS_GENERIC, __ANY_URI, __FRAUD_BODY_WEBMAIL, __URI_NO_PATH, BODY_SIZE_3000_3999, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY, RDNS_GENERIC_POOLED, HTML_00_01, HTML_00_10, BODY_SIZE_5000_LESS, RDNS_SUSP_GENERIC, __OUTLOOK_MUA, MULTIPLE_RCPTS, RDNS_SUSP, __FRAUD_WEBMAIL, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=c2bthomr10.btconnect.com X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0B0205.4F631949.00C0,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2011-07-25 19:15:43, dmn=2011-05-27 18:58:46, mode=multiengine X-Junkmail-IWF: false Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds.all@tools.ietf.org, opsawg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] [apps-discuss] APPSDIR reviewofdraft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds-05 X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 10:43:48 -0000 Lisa I think that the other subtext implicit in this I-D is the recent change of meaning of OAM, to exclude Management. That is, when you nowadays see a reference to Management, as in the title of this I-D, you have to add, sotto voce, 'and excluding anything that might be considered part of OAM'. Sigh:-( Tom Petch ----- Original Message ----- From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Lisa Dusseault" ; Cc: ; ; Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 11:52 AM Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] [apps-discuss] APPSDIR reviewofdraft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds-05 > Hi Lisa, > > Thank you for your review. > > Please allow me to respond to one of your comments. > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:apps-discuss- > > bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault > > > > The goal of this document sounds great, and it seems there is some > > need for a survey or overview of network management standards. Some > > sections achieve the document's goals with concise, clear summaries > > and pointers to outside work. Other sections of the document suffer > > from meaningless (e.g. circular or jargon-laden) summaries and awkward > > explanations, but at least the pointers will still be useful. I have > > some concerns about whether the document is comprehensive, because a > > survey is most useful when it really points to all the prior and > > relevant work at least in brief. > > > > While I am not in a position to notice all the places where the > > document may have holes in its comprehensiveness, I did note that > > currently active work was not consistently covered. The document does > > not mention or refer to ARMD, BMWG or benchmarking, GROW or BGP > > Monitoring. I do not know which of these Ops area WGs are important > > or actively making progress, but to an Ops outsider they all seem > > relevant. It's not as if the document does not cover active work: the > > document goes into some detail explaining not only the purpose of > > energy management work going on in the IETF but also some of the > > challenges of that work (appendix B). Missing other active WGs' > > topics seems odd. > > > > [[DR]] As you probably know well the OPS Area activities covers > Operations and Management. The scope of this document is as you > correctly point providing an overview of network management standards. > The WGs you mention - ARMD, BMWG, GROW - belong all to the operational > part of the area, none develops network management standards (protocols > or data models). BGP monitoring is realized via a number of means, two > of them are mentioned in the document (the data model in RFC 4273 in > section 4.1.3 and the IPFIX IEs in section 4.2.3). > > Regards, > > Dan > > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > OPSAWG@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg > > From fanpeng@chinamobile.com Mon Mar 19 06:59:46 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82F4221F8610 for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 06:59:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.909 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.836, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RELAY_IS_221=2.222] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id me+78AzCuJsj for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 06:59:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imss.chinamobile.com (imss.chinamobile.com [221.130.253.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7481821F8534 for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 06:59:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imss.chinamobile.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.chinamobile.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37DA6E575 for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 21:59:44 +0800 (CST) Received: from mail.chinamobile.com (unknown [10.1.28.22]) by imss.chinamobile.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CE0DE573 for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 21:59:44 +0800 (CST) Received: from X6X8D79D8F49E2 ([10.2.52.245]) by mail.chinamobile.com (Lotus Domino Release 6.5.6) with ESMTP id 2012031921594231-22461 ; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 21:59:42 +0800 From: "Fan Peng" To: Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 21:59:47 +0800 Message-ID: <006d01cd05d8$8b6ffee0$a24ffca0$@chinamobile.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: Ac0F1Qb1v/098DiaRxyLOyBgQ8yVtQ== X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on jtgsml01/servers/cmcc(Release 6.5.6|March 06, 2007) at 2012-03-19 21:59:42, Serialize by Router on jtgsml01/servers/cmcc(Release 6.5.6|March 06, 2007) at 2012-03-19 21:59:43, Serialize complete at 2012-03-19 21:59:43 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_006E_01CD061B.9997F9D0" Content-Language: zh-cn X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.0.0.8231-6.8.0.1017-18782.007 X-TM-AS-Result: No--29.151-7.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--29.151-7.0-31-10;No--29.151-7.0-31-10 X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: No;No X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender: No;No Cc: lilianyuan@chinamobile.com Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Requirements for IP/MPLS network transmission interruption duration X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:59:46 -0000 This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_006E_01CD061B.9997F9D0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" Hi all, =20 Any feedback about this memo? =20 I think I=A1=AFd better point out the purpose of this I-D = straightforward. We are not considering the outage time of IP/MPLS layer need to be more strictly limited, but we want to reveal the fact that longer outage time = is tolerable. Although the industry may have some existing perspectives on = the matter of interruption duration =A8C for example sub-50ms-outage-time requirement for physical transport layer =A8C we think the requirement = for IP/MPLS layer can be alleviated to some extent as long as upper-level service connection is not affected to be broken. To be more specific, we consider IP interruption duration of 3 sec is ok for softswitch voice. =20 There is no consensus right now in the industry on interruption duration = for IP/MPLS layer. We are hoping that we can discuss this problem and = finally reach an agreement on requirement for IP/MPLS interruption duration. We = hold the opinion that sub-50ms requirement is not necessary for IP, and wish = to hear comments from all of you. =20 Best regards, =20 Fan Peng =20 =20 =B7=A2=BC=FE=C8=CB: fanpeng [mailto:fanpeng@chinamobile.com]=20 =B7=A2=CB=CD=CA=B1=BC=E4: 2012=C4=EA3=D4=C212=C8=D5 23:24 =CA=D5=BC=FE=C8=CB: 'opsawg@ietf.org'; 'Bradner, Scott'; = ''; '' =B3=AD=CB=CD: =C0=EE=C1=AC=D4=B4 (lilianyuan@chinamobile.com) =D6=F7=CC=E2: Requirements for IP/MPLS network transmission interruption = duration =20 Greetings all, =20 We have recently submitted a draft on transmission interruption duration (draft-fan-opsawg-transmission-interuption-00 ). We felt it necessary to make requirements for the interruption = duration since there is no consensus on it yet in the industry. We primarily = analyzed interruption criteria for softswitch voice, and research on LTE backhaul = and other kinds of service scenarios has been in progress. =20 We would like to hear from you feedbacks about this draft, e.g. whether = or not there should be such requirements or methodology for the analysis. = Any comment on it will be appreciated. =20 The following is a brief introduction: =20 Today's IP/MPLS network is widely used as a bearing network to carry diversified packet switched services. The transmission qualities of = these services are closely related to the performance of bearing layers, as network failure, delay, congestion and other abnormities will inevitably bring about service interruption and user perception degradation. = However, there is no consensus in the industry on transmission interruption for IP/MPLS network up to now. This memo studies relationships between = service performance and transmission interruption duration in several scenarios, = and is intended to reach a list of requirements for these interruption = duration criteria. =20 =20 Best regards, =20 =20 Fan Peng ------=_NextPart_000_006E_01CD061B.9997F9D0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="gb2312"

Hi = all,

 

Any feedback about this memo?

 

I think I=A1=AFd better point = out the purpose of this I-D straightforward. We are not considering the = outage time of IP/MPLS layer need to be more strictly limited, but we = want to reveal the fact that longer outage time is tolerable. Although = the industry may have some existing perspectives on the matter of = interruption duration =A8C for = example sub-50ms-outage-time requirement for physical transport layer = =A8C we think the requirement for = IP/MPLS layer can be alleviated to some extent as long as upper-level = service connection is not affected to be broken. To be more specific, we = consider IP interruption duration of 3 sec is ok for softswitch = voice.

 

There is no consensus right now in the industry on = interruption duration for IP/MPLS layer. We are hoping that we can = discuss this problem  and finally reach an agreement on requirement = for IP/MPLS interruption duration. We hold the opinion that sub-50ms = requirement is not necessary for IP, and wish to hear comments from all = of you.

 

Best regards,

 

Fan Peng

 

 

=B7=A2=BC=FE=C8=CB: fanpeng = [mailto:fanpeng@chinamobile.com]
=B7=A2=CB=CD=CA=B1=BC= =E4: 2012=C4=EA3=D4=C212=C8=D5 23:24
=CA=D5=BC=FE=C8=CB: 'opsawg@ietf.org'; = 'Bradner, Scott'; '<ietf@cdl.asgaard.org>'; = '<melinda.shore@gmail.com>'
=B3=AD=CB=CD: = =C0=EE=C1=AC=D4=B4 = (lilianyuan@chinamobile.com)
=D6=F7=CC=E2: Requirements for IP/MPLS = network transmission interruption = duration

 

Greetings all,

 

We have recently submitted a = draft on transmission interruption duration (draft-fan-opsawg-transmission-interuption-00). We felt it necessary to make requirements for the = interruption duration since there is no consensus on it yet in the = industry. We primarily analyzed interruption criteria for softswitch = voice, and research on LTE backhaul and other kinds of service scenarios = has been in progress.

 

We would like to hear from you feedbacks about this draft, = e.g. whether or not there should be such requirements or methodology for = the analysis. Any comment on it will be = appreciated.

 

The = following is a brief introduction:

 

Today's = IP/MPLS network is widely used as a bearing network to carry diversified = packet switched services. The transmission qualities of these services = are closely related to the performance of bearing layers, as network = failure, delay, congestion and other abnormities will inevitably bring = about service interruption and user perception degradation. However, = there is no consensus in the industry on transmission interruption for = IP/MPLS network up to now.  This memo studies relationships between = service performance and transmission interruption duration in several = scenarios, and is intended to reach a list of requirements for these = interruption duration criteria.

 

 

Best = regards,           = ;            =           =

 

Fan = Peng

------=_NextPart_000_006E_01CD061B.9997F9D0-- From dromasca@avaya.com Mon Mar 19 07:20:22 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF1D621F8657 for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 07:20:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.147 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.147 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.999, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Gt7pJprAxjZr for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 07:20:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56A0121F8656 for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 07:20:21 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ar0FAClAZ0/GmAcF/2dsb2JhbABCgk+CeJ90iCQBiHOBB4IJAQEBAQMSChEDQgcQAgEGAg0EBAEBCwYMCwEEAgEgJQkIAQEEARIIGodoC6IcigoIiXOJVW+FHjdjBJQTh2SFIIR5gmeBUw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,612,1325480400"; d="scan'208,217";a="337702479" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 19 Mar 2012 10:20:20 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.13]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 19 Mar 2012 10:12:08 -0400 x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CD05DB.69851597" Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:20:17 +0100 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <006d01cd05d8$8b6ffee0$a24ffca0$@chinamobile.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [OPSAWG] Requirements for IP/MPLS network transmissioninterruption duration Thread-Index: Ac0F1Qb1v/098DiaRxyLOyBgQ8yVtQABccUg References: <006d01cd05d8$8b6ffee0$a24ffca0$@chinamobile.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Fan Peng" , Cc: lilianyuan@chinamobile.com Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Requirements for IP/MPLS network transmissioninterruption duration X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 14:20:22 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01CD05DB.69851597 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Fan Peng, =20 Question - How can a voice application be sustained when the IP = interruption duration is 3 sec? Typically the acceptable delay in = two-way voice calls is considered to be max 150 msec. If traffic is = interrupted for 3 sec you either lose 100% of the traffic for the 3 sec = (also inacceptable) or you buffer and register a delay way more than the = acceptable numbers.=20 =20 Thanks and Regards, =20 Dan (asking as a contributor) =20 =20 From: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:opsawg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf = Of Fan Peng Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 4:00 PM To: opsawg@ietf.org Cc: lilianyuan@chinamobile.com Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Requirements for IP/MPLS network = transmissioninterruption duration =20 Hi all, =20 Any feedback about this memo? =20 I think I=A1=AFd better point out the purpose of this I-D = straightforward. We are not considering the outage time of IP/MPLS layer = need to be more strictly limited, but we want to reveal the fact that = longer outage time is tolerable. Although the industry may have some = existing perspectives on the matter of interruption duration =A8C for = example sub-50ms-outage-time requirement for physical transport layer = =A8C we think the requirement for IP/MPLS layer can be alleviated to = some extent as long as upper-level service connection is not affected to = be broken. To be more specific, we consider IP interruption duration of = 3 sec is ok for softswitch voice. =20 There is no consensus right now in the industry on interruption duration = for IP/MPLS layer. We are hoping that we can discuss this problem and = finally reach an agreement on requirement for IP/MPLS interruption = duration. We hold the opinion that sub-50ms requirement is not necessary = for IP, and wish to hear comments from all of you. =20 Best regards, =20 Fan Peng =20 =20 =B7=A2=BC=FE=C8=CB: fanpeng [mailto:fanpeng@chinamobile.com]=20 =B7=A2=CB=CD=CA=B1=BC=E4: 2012=C4=EA3=D4=C212=C8=D5 23:24 =CA=D5=BC=FE=C8=CB: 'opsawg@ietf.org'; 'Bradner, Scott'; = ''; '' =B3=AD=CB=CD: =C0=EE=C1=AC=D4=B4 (lilianyuan@chinamobile.com) =D6=F7=CC=E2: Requirements for IP/MPLS network transmission interruption = duration =20 Greetings all, =20 We have recently submitted a draft on transmission interruption duration = (draft-fan-opsawg-transmission-interuption-00 = ). We felt it necessary to make requirements for the interruption = duration since there is no consensus on it yet in the industry. We = primarily analyzed interruption criteria for softswitch voice, and = research on LTE backhaul and other kinds of service scenarios has been = in progress. =20 We would like to hear from you feedbacks about this draft, e.g. whether = or not there should be such requirements or methodology for the = analysis. Any comment on it will be appreciated. =20 The following is a brief introduction: =20 Today's IP/MPLS network is widely used as a bearing network to carry = diversified packet switched services. The transmission qualities of = these services are closely related to the performance of bearing layers, = as network failure, delay, congestion and other abnormities will = inevitably bring about service interruption and user perception = degradation. However, there is no consensus in the industry on = transmission interruption for IP/MPLS network up to now. This memo = studies relationships between service performance and transmission = interruption duration in several scenarios, and is intended to reach a = list of requirements for these interruption duration criteria. =20 =20 Best regards, =20 =20 Fan Peng ------_=_NextPart_001_01CD05DB.69851597 Content-Type: text/html; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Fan = Peng,

 

Question - How can a voice = application be sustained when the IP interruption duration is 3 sec? = Typically the acceptable delay in two-way voice calls is considered to = be max 150 msec. If traffic is interrupted for 3 sec you either lose = 100% of the traffic for the 3 sec (also inacceptable) or you buffer and = register a delay way more than the acceptable numbers. =

 

Thanks = and Regards,

 

Dan

(asking = as a contributor)

 

 

From:= = opsawg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:opsawg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of = Fan Peng
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 4:00 = PM
To: opsawg@ietf.org
Cc: = lilianyuan@chinamobile.com
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Requirements = for IP/MPLS network transmissioninterruption = duration

 

Hi all,

 

Any = feedback about this memo?

 

I = think I=A1=AFd better point out the purpose of this I-D straightforward. = We are not considering the outage time of IP/MPLS layer need to be more = strictly limited, but we want to reveal the fact that longer outage time = is tolerable. Although the industry may have some existing perspectives = on the matter of interruption duration =A8C for example = sub-50ms-outage-time requirement for physical transport layer =A8C we think the requirement = for IP/MPLS layer can be alleviated to some extent as long as = upper-level service connection is not affected to be broken. To be more = specific, we consider IP interruption duration of 3 sec is ok for = softswitch voice.

 

There = is no consensus right now in the industry on interruption duration for = IP/MPLS layer. We are hoping that we can discuss this problem  and = finally reach an agreement on requirement for IP/MPLS interruption = duration. We hold the opinion that sub-50ms requirement is not necessary = for IP, and wish to hear comments from all of you.

 

Best = regards,

 

Fan Peng

 

 

=B7=A2=BC=FE=C8=CB= : fanpeng = [mailto:fanpeng@chinamobile.com]
=B7=A2=CB=CD=CA=B1= =BC=E4: 2012=C4=EA3=D4=C212=C8=D5 = 23:24
=CA=D5=BC=FE=C8=CB= : 'opsawg@ietf.org'; = 'Bradner, Scott'; '<ietf@cdl.asgaard.org>'; = '<melinda.shore@gmail.com>'
=B3=AD=CB=CD: =C0=EE=C1=AC=D4=B4= = (lilianyuan@chinamobile.com)
=D6=F7=CC=E2: Requirements for IP/MPLS = network transmission interruption = duration

 

Greetings all,

 

We = have recently submitted a draft on transmission interruption duration = (draft-fan-opsawg-transmission-interuption-00). We = felt it necessary to make requirements for the interruption duration = since there is no consensus on it yet in the industry. We primarily = analyzed interruption criteria for softswitch voice, and research on LTE = backhaul and other kinds of service scenarios has been in = progress.

 

We would like to hear from you feedbacks about this = draft, e.g. whether or not there should be such requirements or = methodology for the analysis. Any comment on it will be = appreciated.

 

The following is a = brief introduction:

 

Today's IP/MPLS network = is widely used as a bearing network to carry diversified packet switched = services. The transmission qualities of these services are closely = related to the performance of bearing layers, as network failure, delay, = congestion and other abnormities will inevitably bring about service = interruption and user perception degradation. However, there is no = consensus in the industry on transmission interruption for IP/MPLS = network up to now.  This memo studies relationships between service = performance and transmission interruption duration in several scenarios, = and is intended to reach a list of requirements for these interruption = duration criteria.

 

 

Best = regards,           = ;            =           =

 

Fan = Peng

------_=_NextPart_001_01CD05DB.69851597-- From cdl@asgaard.org Mon Mar 19 11:07:34 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A60F821F885D for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 11:07:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.466 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.466 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.133, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zj1+XH1a44Zt for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 11:07:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asgaard.org (odin.asgaard.org [204.29.151.68]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAAD021F886E for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 11:07:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by asgaard.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F2DFD5231D; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 18:07:30 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at asgaard.org Received: from asgaard.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (odin.asgaard.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id I5dtsjnGuzf1; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 18:07:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.254.47] (74-93-4-130-sfba.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [74.93.4.130]) by asgaard.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2BC9ED52310; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 18:07:27 +0000 (UTC) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 From: Christopher LILJENSTOLPE In-Reply-To: <006d01cd05d8$8b6ffee0$a24ffca0$@chinamobile.com> Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 11:07:26 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <84615EA8-2B12-42E2-A2EB-521DE4C9EEA2@asgaard.org> References: <006d01cd05d8$8b6ffee0$a24ffca0$@chinamobile.com> To: "Fan Peng" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257) Cc: opsawg@ietf.org, lilianyuan@chinamobile.com Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Requirements for IP/MPLS network transmission interruption duration X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 18:07:35 -0000 Greetings, I think this draft, if it is properly structured, and supported, = could be useful. Today everyone's default answer to "how fast do you = want to restore" is 50ms, as that is the current "standard." However, = that 50ms horizon does add cost and complexity in some cases. A really = bottomed out and supported draft that covers many use cases could be = quite useful. Chris On 19Mar2012, at 06.59, Fan Peng wrote: > Hi all, >=20 >=20 >=20 > Any feedback about this memo? >=20 >=20 >=20 > I think I=E2=80=99d better point out the purpose of this I-D = straightforward. We > are not considering the outage time of IP/MPLS layer need to be more > strictly limited, but we want to reveal the fact that longer outage = time is > tolerable. Although the industry may have some existing perspectives = on the > matter of interruption duration =E2=80=93 for example = sub-50ms-outage-time > requirement for physical transport layer =E2=80=93 we think the = requirement for > IP/MPLS layer can be alleviated to some extent as long as upper-level > service connection is not affected to be broken. To be more specific, = we > consider IP interruption duration of 3 sec is ok for softswitch voice. >=20 >=20 >=20 > There is no consensus right now in the industry on interruption = duration for > IP/MPLS layer. We are hoping that we can discuss this problem and = finally > reach an agreement on requirement for IP/MPLS interruption duration. = We hold > the opinion that sub-50ms requirement is not necessary for IP, and = wish to > hear comments from all of you. >=20 >=20 >=20 > Best regards, >=20 >=20 >=20 > Fan Peng >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > =E5=8F=91=E4=BB=B6=E4=BA=BA: fanpeng [mailto:fanpeng@chinamobile.com]=20= > =E5=8F=91=E9=80=81=E6=97=B6=E9=97=B4: 2012=E5=B9=B43=E6=9C=8812=E6=97=A5= 23:24 > =E6=94=B6=E4=BB=B6=E4=BA=BA: 'opsawg@ietf.org'; 'Bradner, Scott'; = ''; > '' > =E6=8A=84=E9=80=81: =E6=9D=8E=E8=BF=9E=E6=BA=90 = (lilianyuan@chinamobile.com) > =E4=B8=BB=E9=A2=98: Requirements for IP/MPLS network transmission = interruption duration >=20 >=20 >=20 > Greetings all, >=20 >=20 >=20 > We have recently submitted a draft on transmission interruption = duration > (draft-fan-opsawg-transmission-interuption-00 > = > ). We felt it necessary to make requirements for the interruption = duration > since there is no consensus on it yet in the industry. We primarily = analyzed > interruption criteria for softswitch voice, and research on LTE = backhaul and > other kinds of service scenarios has been in progress. >=20 >=20 >=20 > We would like to hear from you feedbacks about this draft, e.g. = whether or > not there should be such requirements or methodology for the analysis. = Any > comment on it will be appreciated. >=20 >=20 >=20 > The following is a brief introduction: >=20 >=20 >=20 > Today's IP/MPLS network is widely used as a bearing network to carry > diversified packet switched services. The transmission qualities of = these > services are closely related to the performance of bearing layers, as > network failure, delay, congestion and other abnormities will = inevitably > bring about service interruption and user perception degradation. = However, > there is no consensus in the industry on transmission interruption for > IP/MPLS network up to now. This memo studies relationships between = service > performance and transmission interruption duration in several = scenarios, and > is intended to reach a list of requirements for these interruption = duration > criteria. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Best regards, =20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Fan Peng >=20 > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > OPSAWG@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg -- =20 =E6=9D=8E=E6=9F=AF=E7=9D=BF Check my PGP key here: https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.asc Current vCard here: https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.vcf Check my calendar availability: https://tungle.me/cdl From adrian@olddog.co.uk Mon Mar 19 13:49:18 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACE8921F87AA for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:49:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.98 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.98 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G9-zzAAjFkfz for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:49:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (asmtp5.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.176]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5131E21F879A for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:49:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q2JKnAGj025435; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 20:49:10 GMT Received: from 950129200 ([90.84.146.224]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q2JKmjgq025244 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 19 Mar 2012 20:49:09 GMT From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "'Fan Peng'" References: <006d01cd05d8$8b6ffee0$a24ffca0$@chinamobile.com> <84615EA8-2B12-42E2-A2EB-521DE4C9EEA2@asgaard.org> In-Reply-To: <84615EA8-2B12-42E2-A2EB-521DE4C9EEA2@asgaard.org> Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 20:48:44 -0000 Message-ID: <007001cd0611$bb6ce8e0$3246baa0$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQIgSeY+U4mlFROFupXyMv+YsvoreQNV1y0ZlbDUzfA= Content-Language: en-gb Cc: opsawg@ietf.org, lilianyuan@chinamobile.com Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Requirements for IP/MPLS network transmission interruption duration X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 20:49:18 -0000 I would also like to support the concept of this draft. Not only have we = followed the 50ms mantra for a long time, but there are arguments that = it wasn't a number picked for best user-centric reasons. It would be great to know what the real requirements are in IP/MPLS = networks, and maybe understand how these relate to different services = that are being carried. The example of VoIP has already been given, and = pseudowires may also drive switchover time. But other services are = surely less likely to need such rapid protection. Another factor will, or course, depend on whether the service type is or = can be known. In the core of an IP/MPLS network this may be hard. at the = edges (where end-to-end protection is done?) it may be easier. Cheers, Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:opsawg-bounces@ietf.org] On = Behalf > Of Christopher LILJENSTOLPE > Sent: 19 March 2012 18:07 > To: Fan Peng > Cc: opsawg@ietf.org; lilianyuan@chinamobile.com > Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Requirements for IP/MPLS network transmission > interruption duration >=20 > Greetings, >=20 > >=20 > I think this draft, if it is properly structured, and supported, = could be > useful. Today everyone's default answer to "how fast do you want to = restore" is > 50ms, as that is the current "standard." However, that 50ms horizon = does add > cost and complexity in some cases. A really bottomed out and = supported draft > that covers many use cases could be quite useful. >=20 > Chris >=20 >=20 > On 19Mar2012, at 06.59, Fan Peng wrote: >=20 > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > Any feedback about this memo? > > > > > > > > I think I=E2=80=99d better point out the purpose of this I-D = straightforward. We > > are not considering the outage time of IP/MPLS layer need to be more > > strictly limited, but we want to reveal the fact that longer outage = time is > > tolerable. Although the industry may have some existing perspectives = on the > > matter of interruption duration =E2=80=93 for example = sub-50ms-outage-time > > requirement for physical transport layer =E2=80=93 we think the = requirement for > > IP/MPLS layer can be alleviated to some extent as long as = upper-level > > service connection is not affected to be broken. To be more = specific, we > > consider IP interruption duration of 3 sec is ok for softswitch = voice. > > > > > > > > There is no consensus right now in the industry on interruption = duration for > > IP/MPLS layer. We are hoping that we can discuss this problem and = finally > > reach an agreement on requirement for IP/MPLS interruption duration. = We > hold > > the opinion that sub-50ms requirement is not necessary for IP, and = wish to > > hear comments from all of you. > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > Fan Peng > > > > > > > > > > > > =E5=8F=91=E4=BB=B6=E4=BA=BA: fanpeng = [mailto:fanpeng@chinamobile.com] > > =E5=8F=91=E9=80=81=E6=97=B6=E9=97=B4: = 2012=E5=B9=B43=E6=9C=8812=E6=97=A5 23:24 > > =E6=94=B6=E4=BB=B6=E4=BA=BA: 'opsawg@ietf.org'; 'Bradner, Scott'; = ''; > > '' > > =E6=8A=84=E9=80=81: =E6=9D=8E=E8=BF=9E=E6=BA=90 = (lilianyuan@chinamobile.com) > > =E4=B8=BB=E9=A2=98: Requirements for IP/MPLS network transmission = interruption duration > > > > > > > > Greetings all, > > > > > > > > We have recently submitted a draft on transmission interruption = duration > > (draft-fan-opsawg-transmission-interuption-00 > > = > > ). We felt it necessary to make requirements for the interruption = duration > > since there is no consensus on it yet in the industry. We primarily = analyzed > > interruption criteria for softswitch voice, and research on LTE = backhaul and > > other kinds of service scenarios has been in progress. > > > > > > > > We would like to hear from you feedbacks about this draft, e.g. = whether or > > not there should be such requirements or methodology for the = analysis. Any > > comment on it will be appreciated. > > > > > > > > The following is a brief introduction: > > > > > > > > Today's IP/MPLS network is widely used as a bearing network to carry > > diversified packet switched services. The transmission qualities of = these > > services are closely related to the performance of bearing layers, = as > > network failure, delay, congestion and other abnormities will = inevitably > > bring about service interruption and user perception degradation. = However, > > there is no consensus in the industry on transmission interruption = for > > IP/MPLS network up to now. This memo studies relationships between = service > > performance and transmission interruption duration in several = scenarios, and > > is intended to reach a list of requirements for these interruption = duration > > criteria. > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > Fan Peng > > > > _______________________________________________ > > OPSAWG mailing list > > OPSAWG@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg >=20 > -- > =E6=9D=8E=E6=9F=AF=E7=9D=BF > Check my PGP key here: https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.asc > Current vCard here: https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.vcf > Check my calendar availability: https://tungle.me/cdl >=20 > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > OPSAWG@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg From fanpeng@chinamobile.com Tue Mar 20 02:10:35 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8F3021F8829 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 02:10:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 4.193 X-Spam-Level: **** X-Spam-Status: No, score=4.193 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.726, BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RELAY_IS_221=2.222, SARE_SUB_ENC_GB2312=1.345] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mBi09UeLjWee for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 02:10:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imss.chinamobile.com (imss.chinamobile.com [221.130.253.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1E4B21F8715 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 02:10:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imss.chinamobile.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.chinamobile.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7698E5B3; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 17:10:29 +0800 (CST) Received: from mail.chinamobile.com (unknown [10.1.28.22]) by imss.chinamobile.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A521DE3BF; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 17:10:29 +0800 (CST) Received: from X6X8D79D8F49E2 ([10.2.52.245]) by mail.chinamobile.com (Lotus Domino Release 6.5.6) with ESMTP id 2012032017102812-15863 ; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 17:10:28 +0800 From: "Fan Peng" To: "'Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)'" , References: <006d01cd05d8$8b6ffee0$a24ffca0$@chinamobile.com> In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 17:10:29 +0800 Message-ID: <009d01cd0679$4be65c50$e3b314f0$@chinamobile.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQIgSeY+U4mlFROFupXyMv+YsvoreQHuPcPHlby8LmA= X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on jtgsml01/servers/cmcc(Release 6.5.6|March 06, 2007) at 2012-03-20 17:10:28, Serialize by Router on jtgsml01/servers/cmcc(Release 6.5.6|March 06, 2007) at 2012-03-20 17:10:29, Serialize complete at 2012-03-20 17:10:29 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_009E_01CD06BC.5A0E5740" Content-Language: zh-cn X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.0.0.8231-6.8.0.1017-18784.004 X-TM-AS-Result: No--40.131-7.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--40.131-7.0-31-10;No--40.131-7.0-31-10 X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: No;No X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender: No;No Cc: lilianyuan@chinamobile.com Subject: [OPSAWG] =?gb2312?b?tPC4tDogIFJlcXVpcmVtZW50cyBmb3IgSVAvTVBMUyBu?= =?gb2312?b?ZXR3b3JrIHRyYW5zbWlzc2lvbmludGVycnVwdGlvbiBkdXJhdGlv?= =?gb2312?b?bg==?= X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 09:10:35 -0000 This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_009E_01CD06BC.5A0E5740 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" Hi Dan, =20 Thanks for your question. =20 What we talked about softswitch impairment in this memo focused mainly = on control plane and barely on user plane. A voice connection can be = sustained as long as the connection on control plane is not released, which is achieved by some signal interaction detection and timeout mechanism. =20 When we talk about =A1=B0delay=A1=B1 we usually refer to two kinds of = delay: connection delay and transmission delay (though I am not quite sure = about these English equivalent terms). Connection delay measures the period = needed stating when a call is initiated and finishing when the called party = rings; while transmission delay, explicitly, measures how long the opposite = party has to wait to hear me after I speak a sentence. I think by 150 msec = delay in your letter you intended to mention the transmission delay? =20 Connection delay, explained in our document, involves many signaling processes thus usually consumes several seconds on average, far longer = than transmission delay. Transmission delay is actually one of the design criteria that have to be considered during the network planning phase. = It sets quality the network has to guarantee in the normal working state, = but only in the normal working state. If a network failure occurs, the = previous normal state criteria are highly unlikely to be satisfied, with user perception suffering also probable. So if IP layer breaks out, the user = will likely to experience a short period of voice delay, intermittency, or = even 100% loss, just as the circumstances we may encounter in everyday life = when stepping into an elevator or underground garage or under an overpass and stepping out shortly after. So as long as the IP lay recovers quickly, connection can still be remained. Although this may harm user perception = a little bit, we think it is better than complete breakoff and dialing = again. =20 In order to avoid this user perception harm, the IP bearing network = needs to be more robust, which leads to another aspect of network operation and management focusing on network availability with criteria like unavailability, failure rate, MTTR, MTBF and so on. What we concern is actually the ability of IP layer to tolerate abnormalities after a = network failure indeed occurs. In summary, these can be considered two points of view or levels of problem. =20 Please let me know if I didn=A1=AFt make myself clear enough:) I will = try to initiate discussion with my colleagues specialized in softswitch and = hope to get more detailed information. =20 Regards, =20 Fan Peng =20 =B7=A2=BC=FE=C8=CB: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com]=20 =B7=A2=CB=CD=CA=B1=BC=E4: 2012=C4=EA3=D4=C219=C8=D5 22:20 =CA=D5=BC=FE=C8=CB: Fan Peng; opsawg@ietf.org =B3=AD=CB=CD: lilianyuan@chinamobile.com =D6=F7=CC=E2: RE: [OPSAWG] Requirements for IP/MPLS network = transmissioninterruption duration =20 Hi Fan Peng, =20 Question - How can a voice application be sustained when the IP = interruption duration is 3 sec? Typically the acceptable delay in two-way voice calls = is considered to be max 150 msec. If traffic is interrupted for 3 sec you either lose 100% of the traffic for the 3 sec (also inacceptable) or you buffer and register a delay way more than the acceptable numbers.=20 =20 Thanks and Regards, =20 Dan (asking as a contributor) =20 =20 From: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:opsawg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf = Of Fan Peng Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 4:00 PM To: opsawg@ietf.org Cc: lilianyuan@chinamobile.com Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Requirements for IP/MPLS network transmissioninterruption duration =20 Hi all, =20 Any feedback about this memo? =20 I think I=A1=AFd better point out the purpose of this I-D = straightforward. We are not considering the outage time of IP/MPLS layer need to be more strictly limited, but we want to reveal the fact that longer outage time = is tolerable. Although the industry may have some existing perspectives on = the matter of interruption duration =A8C for example sub-50ms-outage-time requirement for physical transport layer =A8C we think the requirement = for IP/MPLS layer can be alleviated to some extent as long as upper-level service connection is not affected to be broken. To be more specific, we consider IP interruption duration of 3 sec is ok for softswitch voice. =20 There is no consensus right now in the industry on interruption duration = for IP/MPLS layer. We are hoping that we can discuss this problem and = finally reach an agreement on requirement for IP/MPLS interruption duration. We = hold the opinion that sub-50ms requirement is not necessary for IP, and wish = to hear comments from all of you. =20 Best regards, =20 Fan Peng =20 =20 =B7=A2=BC=FE=C8=CB: fanpeng [mailto:fanpeng@chinamobile.com]=20 =B7=A2=CB=CD=CA=B1=BC=E4: 2012=C4=EA3=D4=C212=C8=D5 23:24 =CA=D5=BC=FE=C8=CB: 'opsawg@ietf.org'; 'Bradner, Scott'; = ''; '' =B3=AD=CB=CD: =C0=EE=C1=AC=D4=B4 (lilianyuan@chinamobile.com) =D6=F7=CC=E2: Requirements for IP/MPLS network transmission interruption = duration =20 Greetings all, =20 We have recently submitted a draft on transmission interruption duration (draft-fan-opsawg-transmission-interuption-00 ). We felt it necessary to make requirements for the interruption = duration since there is no consensus on it yet in the industry. We primarily = analyzed interruption criteria for softswitch voice, and research on LTE backhaul = and other kinds of service scenarios has been in progress. =20 We would like to hear from you feedbacks about this draft, e.g. whether = or not there should be such requirements or methodology for the analysis. = Any comment on it will be appreciated. =20 The following is a brief introduction: =20 Today's IP/MPLS network is widely used as a bearing network to carry diversified packet switched services. The transmission qualities of = these services are closely related to the performance of bearing layers, as network failure, delay, congestion and other abnormities will inevitably bring about service interruption and user perception degradation. = However, there is no consensus in the industry on transmission interruption for IP/MPLS network up to now. This memo studies relationships between = service performance and transmission interruption duration in several scenarios, = and is intended to reach a list of requirements for these interruption = duration criteria. =20 =20 Best regards, =20 =20 Fan Peng ------=_NextPart_000_009E_01CD06BC.5A0E5740 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="gb2312"

Hi Dan,

 

Thanks for = your question.

 

What we = talked about softswitch impairment in this memo focused mainly on = control plane and barely on user plane. A voice connection can be = sustained as long as the connection on control plane is not released, = which is achieved by some signal interaction detection and timeout = mechanism.

 

When we = talk about =A1=B0delay=A1=B1 we usually refer to two kinds of delay: = connection delay and transmission delay (though I am not quite sure = about these English equivalent terms). Connection delay measures the = period needed stating when a call is initiated and finishing when the = called party rings; while transmission delay, explicitly, measures how = long the opposite party has to wait to hear me after I speak a sentence. = I think by 150 msec delay in your letter you intended to mention the = transmission delay?

 

Connection = delay, explained in our document,  involves many signaling = processes thus usually consumes several seconds on average, far longer = than transmission delay. Transmission delay is actually one of the = design criteria that have to be considered during the network planning = phase. It sets quality the network has to guarantee in the normal = working state, but only in the normal working state. If a network = failure occurs, the previous normal state criteria are highly unlikely = to be satisfied, with user perception suffering also probable. So if IP = layer breaks out, the user will likely to experience a short period of = voice delay, intermittency, or even 100% loss, just as the = circumstances we may encounter in everyday life when stepping into an = elevator or underground garage or under an overpass and stepping out = shortly after. So as long as the IP lay recovers quickly, connection can = still be remained. Although this may harm user perception a little bit, = we think it is better than complete breakoff and dialing = again.

 

In order to = avoid this user perception harm, the IP bearing network needs to be more = robust, which leads to another aspect of network operation and = management focusing on network availability with criteria like = unavailability, failure rate, MTTR, MTBF and so on. What we concern is = actually the ability of IP layer to tolerate abnormalities after a = network failure indeed occurs. In summary, these can be considered two = points of view or levels of problem.

 

Please let = me know if I didn=A1=AFt make myself clear enough:) I will try to = initiate discussion with my colleagues specialized in softswitch and = hope to get more detailed information.

 

Regards,

 

Fan = Peng

 

=B7=A2=BC=FE=C8=CB: Romascanu, Dan = (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com]
=B7=A2=CB=CD=CA=B1=BC= =E4: 2012=C4=EA3=D4=C219=C8=D5 22:20
=CA=D5=BC=FE=C8=CB: Fan Peng; = opsawg@ietf.org
=B3=AD=CB=CD: = lilianyuan@chinamobile.com
=D6=F7=CC=E2: RE: [OPSAWG] Requirements = for IP/MPLS network transmissioninterruption = duration

 

Hi Fan = Peng,

 

Question - How can a voice = application be sustained when the IP interruption duration is 3 sec? = Typically the acceptable delay in two-way voice calls is considered to = be max 150 msec. If traffic is interrupted for 3 sec you either lose = 100% of the traffic for the 3 sec (also inacceptable) or you buffer and = register a delay way more than the acceptable numbers. =

 

Thanks and = Regards,

 

Dan

(asking as a = contributor)

 

 

From:= = opsawg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:opsawg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of = Fan Peng
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 4:00 = PM
To: opsawg@ietf.org
Cc: = lilianyuan@chinamobile.com
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Requirements = for IP/MPLS network transmissioninterruption = duration

 

Hi all,

 

Any feedback about this memo?

 

I think I=A1=AFd better point = out the purpose of this I-D straightforward. We are not considering the = outage time of IP/MPLS layer need to be more strictly limited, but we = want to reveal the fact that longer outage time is tolerable. Although = the industry may have some existing perspectives on the matter of = interruption duration =A8C for = example sub-50ms-outage-time requirement for physical transport layer = =A8C we think the requirement for = IP/MPLS layer can be alleviated to some extent as long as upper-level = service connection is not affected to be broken. To be more specific, we = consider IP interruption duration of 3 sec is ok for softswitch = voice.

 

There is no consensus right now in the industry on = interruption duration for IP/MPLS layer. We are hoping that we can = discuss this problem  and finally reach an agreement on requirement = for IP/MPLS interruption duration. We hold the opinion that sub-50ms = requirement is not necessary for IP, and wish to hear comments from all = of you.

 

Best regards,

 

Fan Peng

 

 

=B7=A2=BC=FE=C8=CB: fanpeng = [mailto:fanpeng@chinamobile.com]
=B7=A2=CB=CD=CA=B1=BC= =E4: 2012=C4=EA3=D4=C212=C8=D5 23:24
=CA=D5=BC=FE=C8=CB: 'opsawg@ietf.org'; = 'Bradner, Scott'; '<ietf@cdl.asgaard.org>'; = '<melinda.shore@gmail.com>'
=B3=AD=CB=CD: = =C0=EE=C1=AC=D4=B4 = (lilianyuan@chinamobile.com)
=D6=F7=CC=E2: Requirements for IP/MPLS = network transmission interruption = duration

 

Greetings all,

 

We have recently submitted a = draft on transmission interruption duration (draft-fan-opsawg-transmission-interuption-00). We felt it necessary to make requirements for the = interruption duration since there is no consensus on it yet in the = industry. We primarily analyzed interruption criteria for softswitch = voice, and research on LTE backhaul and other kinds of service scenarios = has been in progress.

 

We would like to hear from you feedbacks about this draft, = e.g. whether or not there should be such requirements or methodology for = the analysis. Any comment on it will be = appreciated.

 

The = following is a brief introduction:

 

Today's = IP/MPLS network is widely used as a bearing network to carry diversified = packet switched services. The transmission qualities of these services = are closely related to the performance of bearing layers, as network = failure, delay, congestion and other abnormities will inevitably bring = about service interruption and user perception degradation. However, = there is no consensus in the industry on transmission interruption for = IP/MPLS network up to now.  This memo studies relationships between = service performance and transmission interruption duration in several = scenarios, and is intended to reach a list of requirements for these = interruption duration criteria.

 

 

Best = regards,           = ;            =           =

 

Fan = Peng

------=_NextPart_000_009E_01CD06BC.5A0E5740-- From fanpeng@chinamobile.com Tue Mar 20 02:54:19 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 594C521F8776 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 02:54:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.779 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.779 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.894, BAD_ENC_HEADER=1.81, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RELAY_IS_221=2.222, SARE_SUB_ENC_UTF8=0.152] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HnRMx47H1lfK for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 02:54:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imss.chinamobile.com (imss.chinamobile.com [221.130.253.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42E9721F8775 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 02:54:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imss.chinamobile.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.chinamobile.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56497E5F7; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 17:54:17 +0800 (CST) Received: from mail.chinamobile.com (unknown [10.1.28.22]) by imss.chinamobile.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D674E5A5; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 17:54:17 +0800 (CST) Received: from X6X8D79D8F49E2 ([10.2.52.245]) by mail.chinamobile.com (Lotus Domino Release 6.5.6) with ESMTP id 2012032017541548-18084 ; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 17:54:15 +0800 From: "Fan Peng" To: , "'Christopher LILJENSTOLPE'" References: <006d01cd05d8$8b6ffee0$a24ffca0$@chinamobile.com> <84615EA8-2B12-42E2-A2EB-521DE4C9EEA2@asgaard.org> <007001cd0611$bb6ce8e0$3246baa0$@olddog.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <007001cd0611$bb6ce8e0$3246baa0$@olddog.co.uk> Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 17:54:16 +0800 Message-ID: <00ae01cd067f$69bdebc0$3d39c340$@chinamobile.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQIgSeY+U4mlFROFupXyMv+YsvoreQNV1y0ZAfgNESSVoe9HcA== X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on jtgsml01/servers/cmcc(Release 6.5.6|March 06, 2007) at 2012-03-20 17:54:15, Serialize by Router on jtgsml01/servers/cmcc(Release 6.5.6|March 06, 2007) at 2012-03-20 17:54:17, Serialize complete at 2012-03-20 17:54:17 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Language: zh-cn X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.0.0.8231-6.8.0.1017-18784.004 X-TM-AS-Result: No--52.942-7.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--52.942-7.0-31-10;No--52.942-7.0-31-10 X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: No;No X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender: No;No Cc: opsawg@ietf.org, lilianyuan@chinamobile.com Subject: [OPSAWG] =?utf-8?b?562U5aSNOiAgUmVxdWlyZW1lbnRzIGZvciBJUC9NUExT?= =?utf-8?q?_network_transmission=09interruption_duration?= X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 09:54:19 -0000 Dear Christopher and Adrian, Thanks for your kind review. This document is far from complete as we only (preliminarily) finished = the illustration on softswitch which is mainly based on our previous = research work on China Mobile's commercial network. We intend to extend = our concern to other services especially LTE backhaul. However, it is = not easy to analyze this kind of issue, and it may take months to finish = research on a single type of service. So help from industry is highly = appreciated. I think Adrian's question can be interpreted as "whether the IP layer is = aware of what kinds of serves it is carrying and how it defines = requirement for multiple services?" We planned to complete first = requirements for different services so we didn't look deep into global = issues like this. But I do think this issue is a problem to be solved = and we will pay attention to this. Best wishes, Fan Peng -----=E9=82=AE=E4=BB=B6=E5=8E=9F=E4=BB=B6----- =E5=8F=91=E4=BB=B6=E4=BA=BA: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk]=20 =E5=8F=91=E9=80=81=E6=97=B6=E9=97=B4: 2012=E5=B9=B43=E6=9C=8820=E6=97=A5 = 4:49 =E6=94=B6=E4=BB=B6=E4=BA=BA: 'Fan Peng' =E6=8A=84=E9=80=81: opsawg@ietf.org; lilianyuan@chinamobile.com =E4=B8=BB=E9=A2=98: RE: [OPSAWG] Requirements for IP/MPLS network = transmission interruption duration I would also like to support the concept of this draft. Not only have we = followed the 50ms mantra for a long time, but there are arguments that = it wasn't a number picked for best user-centric reasons. It would be great to know what the real requirements are in IP/MPLS = networks, and maybe understand how these relate to different services = that are being carried. The example of VoIP has already been given, and = pseudowires may also drive switchover time. But other services are = surely less likely to need such rapid protection. Another factor will, or course, depend on whether the service type is or = can be known. In the core of an IP/MPLS network this may be hard. at the = edges (where end-to-end protection is done?) it may be easier. Cheers, Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:opsawg-bounces@ietf.org] On=20 > Behalf Of Christopher LILJENSTOLPE > Sent: 19 March 2012 18:07 > To: Fan Peng > Cc: opsawg@ietf.org; lilianyuan@chinamobile.com > Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Requirements for IP/MPLS network transmission=20 > interruption duration >=20 > Greetings, >=20 > >=20 > I think this draft, if it is properly structured, and supported,=20 > could be useful. Today everyone's default answer to "how fast do you=20 > want to restore" is 50ms, as that is the current "standard." However, = > that 50ms horizon does add cost and complexity in some cases. A=20 > really bottomed out and supported draft that covers many use cases = could be quite useful. >=20 > Chris >=20 >=20 > On 19Mar2012, at 06.59, Fan Peng wrote: >=20 > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > Any feedback about this memo? > > > > > > > > I think I=E2=80=99d better point out the purpose of this I-D=20 > > straightforward. We are not considering the outage time of IP/MPLS=20 > > layer need to be more strictly limited, but we want to reveal the=20 > > fact that longer outage time is tolerable. Although the industry may = > > have some existing perspectives on the matter of interruption=20 > > duration =E2=80=93 for example sub-50ms-outage-time requirement for = physical=20 > > transport layer =E2=80=93 we think the requirement for IP/MPLS layer = can be=20 > > alleviated to some extent as long as upper-level service connection=20 > > is not affected to be broken. To be more specific, we consider IP = interruption duration of 3 sec is ok for softswitch voice. > > > > > > > > There is no consensus right now in the industry on interruption=20 > > duration for IP/MPLS layer. We are hoping that we can discuss this=20 > > problem and finally reach an agreement on requirement for IP/MPLS=20 > > interruption duration. We > hold > > the opinion that sub-50ms requirement is not necessary for IP, and=20 > > wish to hear comments from all of you. > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > Fan Peng > > > > > > > > > > > > =E5=8F=91=E4=BB=B6=E4=BA=BA: fanpeng = [mailto:fanpeng@chinamobile.com] > > =E5=8F=91=E9=80=81=E6=97=B6=E9=97=B4: = 2012=E5=B9=B43=E6=9C=8812=E6=97=A5 23:24 > > =E6=94=B6=E4=BB=B6=E4=BA=BA: 'opsawg@ietf.org'; 'Bradner, Scott'; = '';=20 > > '' > > =E6=8A=84=E9=80=81: =E6=9D=8E=E8=BF=9E=E6=BA=90 = (lilianyuan@chinamobile.com) > > =E4=B8=BB=E9=A2=98: Requirements for IP/MPLS network transmission = interruption=20 > > duration > > > > > > > > Greetings all, > > > > > > > > We have recently submitted a draft on transmission interruption=20 > > duration > > (draft-fan-opsawg-transmission-interuption-00 > > > uption/> ). We felt it necessary to make requirements for the=20 > > interruption duration since there is no consensus on it yet in the=20 > > industry. We primarily analyzed interruption criteria for softswitch = > > voice, and research on LTE backhaul and other kinds of service=20 > > scenarios has been in progress. > > > > > > > > We would like to hear from you feedbacks about this draft, e.g.=20 > > whether or not there should be such requirements or methodology for=20 > > the analysis. Any comment on it will be appreciated. > > > > > > > > The following is a brief introduction: > > > > > > > > Today's IP/MPLS network is widely used as a bearing network to carry = > > diversified packet switched services. The transmission qualities of=20 > > these services are closely related to the performance of bearing=20 > > layers, as network failure, delay, congestion and other abnormities=20 > > will inevitably bring about service interruption and user perception = > > degradation. However, there is no consensus in the industry on=20 > > transmission interruption for IP/MPLS network up to now. This memo=20 > > studies relationships between service performance and transmission=20 > > interruption duration in several scenarios, and is intended to reach = > > a list of requirements for these interruption duration criteria. > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > Fan Peng > > > > _______________________________________________ > > OPSAWG mailing list > > OPSAWG@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg >=20 > -- > =E6=9D=8E=E6=9F=AF=E7=9D=BF > Check my PGP key here: https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.asc > Current vCard here: https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.vcf > Check my calendar availability: https://tungle.me/cdl >=20 > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > OPSAWG@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg From wesley.george@twcable.com Tue Mar 20 06:47:59 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB0E221F867A for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 06:47:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.843 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.843 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.168, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_SUB_ENC_UTF8=0.152] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1ybahIzOYMhv for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 06:47:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cdpipgw01.twcable.com (cdpipgw01.twcable.com [165.237.59.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2887F21F8682 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 06:47:59 -0700 (PDT) X-SENDER-IP: 10.136.163.15 X-SENDER-REPUTATION: None X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,618,1325480400"; d="scan'208";a="356204132" Received: from unknown (HELO PRVPEXHUB06.corp.twcable.com) ([10.136.163.15]) by cdpipgw01.twcable.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-MD5; 20 Mar 2012 09:47:12 -0400 Received: from PRVPEXVS03.corp.twcable.com ([10.136.163.27]) by PRVPEXHUB06.corp.twcable.com ([10.136.163.15]) with mapi; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 09:47:55 -0400 From: "George, Wes" To: Fan Peng , "adrian@olddog.co.uk" , 'Christopher LILJENSTOLPE' Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 09:47:54 -0400 Thread-Topic: =?utf-8?B?W09QU0FXR10g562U5aSNOiAgUmVxdWlyZW1lbnRzIGZvciBJUC9NUExTIG5l?= =?utf-8?B?dHdvcmsgdHJhbnNtaXNzaW9uCWludGVycnVwdGlvbiBkdXJhdGlvbg==?= Thread-Index: AQIgSeY+U4mlFROFupXyMv+YsvoreQNV1y0ZAfgNESSVoe9HcIAASpUQ Message-ID: References: <006d01cd05d8$8b6ffee0$a24ffca0$@chinamobile.com> <84615EA8-2B12-42E2-A2EB-521DE4C9EEA2@asgaard.org> <007001cd0611$bb6ce8e0$3246baa0$@olddog.co.uk> <00ae01cd067f$69bdebc0$3d39c340$@chinamobile.com> In-Reply-To: <00ae01cd067f$69bdebc0$3d39c340$@chinamobile.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "opsawg@ietf.org" , "lilianyuan@chinamobile.com" Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] =?utf-8?b?562U5aSNOiAgUmVxdWlyZW1lbnRzIGZvciBJUC9NUExT?= =?utf-8?q?_network_transmission=09interruption_duration?= X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 13:47:59 -0000 DQoNCj4gLS0tLS1PcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdlLS0tLS0NCj4gRnJvbTogb3BzYXdnLWJvdW5jZXNA aWV0Zi5vcmcgW21haWx0bzpvcHNhd2ctYm91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZ10gT24gQmVoYWxmIE9mDQo+ IEZhbiBQZW5nDQo+DQo+IEkgdGhpbmsgQWRyaWFuJ3MgcXVlc3Rpb24gY2FuIGJlIGludGVycHJl dGVkIGFzICJ3aGV0aGVyIHRoZSBJUCBsYXllciBpcyBhd2FyZQ0KPiBvZiB3aGF0IGtpbmRzIG9m IHNlcnZlcyBpdCBpcyBjYXJyeWluZyBhbmQgaG93IGl0IGRlZmluZXMgcmVxdWlyZW1lbnQgZm9y DQo+IG11bHRpcGxlIHNlcnZpY2VzPyINCg0KW1dFR10gSSdkIHB1dCBpdCBpbiBzbGlnaHRseSBk aWZmZXJlbnQgdGVybXMuDQpUb2RheSwgbWFueSBwZW9wbGUgYnVpbGQgSVAgbmV0d29ya3MgdG8g Y2FycnkgdGhpbmdzIHRoYXQgdXNlZCB0byBsaXZlIGRpcmVjdGx5IG9uIFNPTkVUL1NESC4gVGhv c2UgYXBwbGljYXRpb25zIGFyZSBzb21ldGltZXMgZGVzaWduZWQgd2l0aCBTT05FVC9TREgncyBw ZXJmb3JtYW5jZSBlbnZlbG9wZSBpbiBtaW5kIChzdWItbWlsbGlzZWNvbmQgZmF1bHQgZGV0ZWN0 aW9uLCA1MG1zIHJlc3RvcmF0aW9uKSwgYW5kIHNvIGFwcGxpY2F0aW9ucyBleHBlY3QgYW4gZXF1 aXZhbGVudCBwZXJmb3JtYW5jZSBlbnZlbG9wZSBmcm9tIGFuIElQIG5ldHdvcmssIHdoaWNoIGlz IGNvc3RseSwgYW5kIHN0YXJ0cyB0byBkcml2ZSBtb3JlIGFuZCBtb3JlIGNvbXBsZXggSVAgbmV0 d29ya3MgKGluY2x1ZGluZyB0aGluZ3MgbGlrZSBNUExTIFRFKS4NCg0KSW5zdGVhZCwgd2UgbmVl ZCB0byBwcm9kdWNlIGd1aWRhbmNlIGZvciB0aGUgYXBwbGljYXRpb24gY29tbXVuaXR5IGFib3V0 IHRoZSB0eXBpY2FsL2F2ZXJhZ2UgYW5kIGJlc3QtcG9zc2libGUtY2FzZSBwZXJmb3JtYW5jZSBl bnZlbG9wZSBmb3IgYSBwcm9wZXJseSBkZXNpZ25lZCBJUCBuZXR3b3JrLCBib3RoIGEgbmV0d29y ayB1c2luZyBzdGFuZGFyZCBJUCB3aXRoIGZldyBvcHRpbWl6YXRpb25zLCBhbmQgb25lIHRoYXQg ZW1wbG95cyB0aGluZ3MgdG8gaW1wcm92ZSBkZXRlY3Rpb24sIGNvbnZlcmdlbmNlLCBhbmQgcmVz dG9yYXRpb24gdGltZXMsIHN1Y2ggYXMgSVAgb3IgTVBMUyBGUlIsIG9yIFRFLiBUaGUgaWRlYSBp cyB0aGF0IHRoZXkgbmVlZCB0byBkZXNpZ24gdG8gd2hhdCB0aGUgbmV0d29yayBpcyBjYXBhYmxl IG9mIGRlbGl2ZXJpbmcsIHJhdGhlciB0aGFuIHRoZSBvdGhlciB3YXkgYXJvdW5kLiBUaGVuIHdl IGNhbiBkaXNjdXNzIHRoZSB1c2VyLWV4cGVyaWVuY2UgcmVxdWlyZW1lbnRzIGZvciBkaWZmZXJl bnQgdHlwZXMgb2YgYXBwbGljYXRpb25zLCBpbmNsdWRpbmcgdm9pY2UsIHZpZGVvLCByZWFsLXRp bWUgd2ViIGFwcHMsIGV0YywgYXMgd2VsbCBhcyB0aGUgbmVlZHMgb2YgZXh0cmVtZSBjYXNlcyBs aWtlIHRoZSBzZWN1cml0aWVzIGluZHVzdHJ5LCB3aGljaCB2YWx1ZSBsb3cgbGF0ZW5jeSBvdmVy IGFsbCBlbHNlLg0KDQpUaGFua3MNCg0KV2VzIEdlb3JnZQ0KDQpUaGlzIEUtbWFpbCBhbmQgYW55 IG9mIGl0cyBhdHRhY2htZW50cyBtYXkgY29udGFpbiBUaW1lIFdhcm5lciBDYWJsZSBwcm9wcmll dGFyeSBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiwgd2hpY2ggaXMgcHJpdmlsZWdlZCwgY29uZmlkZW50aWFsLCBvciBz dWJqZWN0IHRvIGNvcHlyaWdodCBiZWxvbmdpbmcgdG8gVGltZSBXYXJuZXIgQ2FibGUuIFRoaXMg RS1tYWlsIGlzIGludGVuZGVkIHNvbGVseSBmb3IgdGhlIHVzZSBvZiB0aGUgaW5kaXZpZHVhbCBv ciBlbnRpdHkgdG8gd2hpY2ggaXQgaXMgYWRkcmVzc2VkLiBJZiB5b3UgYXJlIG5vdCB0aGUgaW50 ZW5kZWQgcmVjaXBpZW50IG9mIHRoaXMgRS1tYWlsLCB5b3UgYXJlIGhlcmVieSBub3RpZmllZCB0 aGF0IGFueSBkaXNzZW1pbmF0aW9uLCBkaXN0cmlidXRpb24sIGNvcHlpbmcsIG9yIGFjdGlvbiB0 YWtlbiBpbiByZWxhdGlvbiB0byB0aGUgY29udGVudHMgb2YgYW5kIGF0dGFjaG1lbnRzIHRvIHRo aXMgRS1tYWlsIGlzIHN0cmljdGx5IHByb2hpYml0ZWQgYW5kIG1heSBiZSB1bmxhd2Z1bC4gSWYg eW91IGhhdmUgcmVjZWl2ZWQgdGhpcyBFLW1haWwgaW4gZXJyb3IsIHBsZWFzZSBub3RpZnkgdGhl IHNlbmRlciBpbW1lZGlhdGVseSBhbmQgcGVybWFuZW50bHkgZGVsZXRlIHRoZSBvcmlnaW5hbCBh bmQgYW55IGNvcHkgb2YgdGhpcyBFLW1haWwgYW5kIGFueSBwcmludG91dC4NCg== From Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Tue Mar 20 07:01:36 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DC2021F8653; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 07:01:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7fHWdhW9eEu6; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 07:01:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B64FD21F8600; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 07:01:35 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.00 Message-ID: <20120320140135.16689.49304.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 07:01:35 -0700 Cc: opsawg@ietf.org Subject: [OPSAWG] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds-07.txt X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 14:01:36 -0000 --NextPart A new Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Operations and Management Area Working Group Working Group of the IETF. Title : An Overview of the IETF Network Management Standards Author(s) : B. Claise, et al Filename : draft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds Pages : 102 Date : March 7, 2011 This document gives an overview of the IETF network management standards and summarizes existing and ongoing development of IETF standards-track network management protocols and data models. The document refers to other overview documents, where they exist and classifies the standards for easy orientation. The purpose of this document is on the one hand to help system developers and users to select appropriate standard management protocols and data models to address relevant management needs. On the other hand, the document can be used as an overview and guideline by other Standard Development Organizations or bodies planning to use IETF management technologies and data models. This document does not cover OAM technologies on the data-path, e.g. OAM of tunnels, MPLS-TP OAM, and Pseudowire as well as the corresponding management models. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds-07.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2012-03-20070135.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- From cb.list6@gmail.com Tue Mar 20 07:46:47 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F113B21F856F for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 07:46:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.237 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.237 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.091, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_SUB_ENC_UTF8=0.152] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id D+FkuV6-slKG for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 07:46:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pb0-f44.google.com (mail-pb0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E425D21F856A for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 07:46:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pbbrq13 with SMTP id rq13so145112pbb.31 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 07:46:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=h03SrB/quAZYSyHvypP2AP5UBJbbndDzQtS1u7AmRMM=; b=HnlsHkkYS5N2GD2fUOaw7llYB+2jkidqyGs7m6D2vp0pL1netTg2LMojvMmHwnjt1g 3qAeN32+XZ7dxdXUbf8HqDgr7UC/GndG2TSSUAzGQjk2FMYIgbdl94WlG6TwblwO6VUW UaqyunNtmwhqUSX37JofCK8PMHa26g66/2kfnZ6vgU160rKd0fZcsLCbav0Xvtc3PWRF Mfh/oA4WkB7QxQ+amtZ7hYZjUc72mM3WGVPS6xB77z2pZ4DqQYRHXrxP3WTJALk1fwuw XQF8bxwkqZuVbH7Tt7nognCZL0wQHFO0zsrc7DDaFBG56UPaMIVwUrz+PVMGE1/ES3vy oJKA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.68.129.132 with SMTP id nw4mr2010073pbb.39.1332254804667; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 07:46:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.143.160.13 with HTTP; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 07:46:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.143.160.13 with HTTP; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 07:46:44 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <006d01cd05d8$8b6ffee0$a24ffca0$@chinamobile.com> <84615EA8-2B12-42E2-A2EB-521DE4C9EEA2@asgaard.org> <007001cd0611$bb6ce8e0$3246baa0$@olddog.co.uk> <00ae01cd067f$69bdebc0$3d39c340$@chinamobile.com> Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 07:46:44 -0700 Message-ID: From: Cameron Byrne To: "George, Wes" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8ffbaecd61ef1b04bbadbea1 Cc: "opsawg@ietf.org" , "lilianyuan@chinamobile.com" , Christopher LILJENSTOLPE Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] =?utf-8?b?562U5aSNOiBSZXF1aXJlbWVudHMgZm9yIElQL01QTFMg?= =?utf-8?q?network_transmission_interruption_duration?= X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 14:46:47 -0000 --e89a8ffbaecd61ef1b04bbadbea1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Mar 20, 2012 6:48 AM, "George, Wes" wrote: > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:opsawg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > > Fan Peng > > > > I think Adrian's question can be interpreted as "whether the IP layer is aware > > of what kinds of serves it is carrying and how it defines requirement for > > multiple services?" > > [WEG] I'd put it in slightly different terms. > Today, many people build IP networks to carry things that used to live directly on SONET/SDH. Those applications are sometimes designed with SONET/SDH's performance envelope in mind (sub-millisecond fault detection, 50ms restoration), and so applications expect an equivalent performance envelope from an IP network, which is costly, and starts to drive more and more complex IP networks (including things like MPLS TE). > > Instead, we need to produce guidance for the application community about the typical/average and best-possible-case performance envelope for a properly designed IP network, both a network using standard IP with few optimizations, and one that employs things to improve detection, convergence, and restoration times, such as IP or MPLS FRR, or TE. The idea is that they need to design to what the network is capable of delivering, rather than the other way around. Then we can discuss the user-experience requirements for different types of applications, including voice, video, real-time web apps, etc, as well as the needs of extreme cases like the securities industry, which value low latency over all else. > > Thanks > > Wes George > +1 for Wes's approach. We have been chasing 50ms for years, and it is not the right goal. I believe the goal should be driven by what is reasonably achievable in a well run IP network, and applications can take that feedback as a design goal for applications that run on a reasonable and well run network. Additional guidance about exponential back off of signalling would be nice.... ah and a note about how the term IP network = ipv6. I got a whole list of guidance for LTE back haul :) But this is scope creep Cb > This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout. > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > OPSAWG@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg --e89a8ffbaecd61ef1b04bbadbea1 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Mar 20, 2012 6:48 AM, "George, Wes" <wesley.george@twcable.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: opsawg-bounces@i= etf.org [mailto:opsawg-bounc= es@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> > Fan Peng
> >
> > I think Adrian's question can be interpreted as "whether= the IP layer is aware
> > of what kinds of serves it is carrying and how it defines require= ment for
> > multiple services?"
>
> [WEG] I'd put it in slightly different terms.
> Today, many people build IP networks to carry things that used to live= directly on SONET/SDH. Those applications are sometimes designed with SONE= T/SDH's performance envelope in mind (sub-millisecond fault detection, = 50ms restoration), and so applications expect an equivalent performance env= elope from an IP network, which is costly, and starts to drive more and mor= e complex IP networks (including things like MPLS TE).
>
> Instead, we need to produce guidance for the application community abo= ut the typical/average and best-possible-case performance envelope for a pr= operly designed IP network, both a network using standard IP with few optim= izations, and one that employs things to improve detection, convergence, an= d restoration times, such as IP or MPLS FRR, or TE. The idea is that they n= eed to design to what the network is capable of delivering, rather than the= other way around. Then we can discuss the user-experience requirements for= different types of applications, including voice, video, real-time web app= s, etc, as well as the needs of extreme cases like the securities industry,= which value low latency over all else.
>
> Thanks
>
> Wes George
>

+1 for Wes's approach.

We have been chasing 50ms for years, and it is not the right goal.
I believe the goal should be driven by what is reasonably achievable in a w= ell run IP network, and applications can take that feedback as a design goa= l=A0 for applications that run on a reasonable and well run network. Additi= onal guidance about exponential back off of signalling would be nice.... ah= and a note about how the term IP network =3D ipv6.

I got a whole list of guidance for LTE back haul=A0 :)

But this is scope creep

Cb

> This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cabl= e proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to= copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely f= or the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are= not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that an= y dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the = contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may b= e unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the se= nder immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E= -mail and any printout.
> _______________________________________________
> OPSAWG mailing list
> OPSAWG@ietf.org
> https://www.i= etf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

--e89a8ffbaecd61ef1b04bbadbea1-- From ietfc@btconnect.com Tue Mar 20 09:47:52 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8EF421F8678 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 09:47:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.653 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.653 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.346, BAYES_00=-2.599, MISSING_HEADERS=1.292] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id x188HDIC1Tyo for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 09:47:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.btconnect.com (c2beaomr09.btconnect.com [213.123.26.187]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD82D21F867C for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 09:47:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from host86-162-135-195.range86-162.btcentralplus.com (HELO pc6) ([86.162.135.195]) by c2beaomr09.btconnect.com with SMTP id GTH19025; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 16:47:50 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <01b601cd06b0$abb21d40$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> From: "t.petch" Cc: References: <20120320140135.16689.49304.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 16:46:48 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Mirapoint-IP-Reputation: reputation=Fair-1, source=Queried, refid=tid=0001.0A0B0303.4F68B4B5.00EE, actions=tag X-Junkmail-Premium-Raw: score=7/50, refid=2.7.2:2012.3.20.155414:17:7.944, ip=86.162.135.195, rules=__HAS_MSGID, __OUTLOOK_MSGID_1, __SANE_MSGID, __BOUNCE_CHALLENGE_SUBJ, __BOUNCE_NDR_SUBJ_EXEMPT, __MIME_VERSION, __CT, CT_TP_8859_1, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN, __CTE, __HAS_X_PRIORITY, __HAS_MSMAIL_PRI, __HAS_X_MAILER, USER_AGENT_OE, __OUTLOOK_MUA_1, __USER_AGENT_MS_GENERIC, MISSING_HEADERS, __ANY_URI, __CP_URI_IN_BODY, BODYTEXTP_SIZE_3000_LESS, BODY_SIZE_2000_2999, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY, RDNS_GENERIC_POOLED, HTML_00_01, HTML_00_10, BODY_SIZE_5000_LESS, RDNS_SUSP_GENERIC, __OUTLOOK_MUA, __PHISH_SPEAR_STRUCTURE_1, RDNS_SUSP, __PHISH_SPEAR_STRUCTURE_2, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS, TO_MALFORMED X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=c2beaomr09.btconnect.com X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0B0201.4F68B4B6.012A,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2011-07-25 19:15:43, dmn=2011-05-27 18:58:46, mode=multiengine X-Junkmail-IWF: false Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds-07.txt X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 16:47:52 -0000 Um. This announces -07 Date : March 7, 2011 on March 20th. Presumably it supersedes -06 Date : 2012-03-12 from 12 Mar 12. Or ....? Tom Petch ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Cc: Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 3:01 PM Subject: [OPSAWG] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds-07.txt > A new Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. > This draft is a work item of the Operations and Management Area Working Group Working Group of the IETF. > > Title : An Overview of the IETF Network Management Standards > Author(s) : B. Claise, et al > Filename : draft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds > Pages : 102 > Date : March 7, 2011 > > This document gives an overview of the IETF network management > standards and summarizes existing and ongoing development of IETF > standards-track network management protocols and data models. The > document refers to other overview documents, where they exist and > classifies the standards for easy orientation. The purpose of this > document is on the one hand to help system developers and users to > select appropriate standard management protocols and data models to > address relevant management needs. On the other hand, the document > can be used as an overview and guideline by other Standard > Development Organizations or bodies planning to use IETF management > technologies and data models. This document does not cover OAM > technologies on the data-path, e.g. OAM of tunnels, MPLS-TP OAM, and > Pseudowire as well as the corresponding management models. > > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds-07.txt > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader > implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the > Internet-Draft. > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > OPSAWG@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg > From dromasca@avaya.com Tue Mar 20 10:13:15 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A2A421F8715 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 10:13:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.07 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.07 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.071, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1oPtZpws8gGZ for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 10:13:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com (de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.71.100]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CFFE21F8711 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 10:13:13 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAFAHW5aE/GmAcF/2dsb2JhbABEtmCBB4IJAQEBAQMBAQEPHgo0CwwEAgEIDQQEAQELBgwLAQYBJh8JCAEBBBMIARmHaAubDpw6imGFPWMEm26KGIJogVs X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,619,1325480400"; d="scan'208";a="298037615" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 20 Mar 2012 13:13:11 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.13]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 20 Mar 2012 13:04:49 -0400 x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 18:13:02 +0100 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <01b601cd06b0$abb21d40$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [OPSAWG] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds-07.txt Thread-Index: Ac0GuTP05Iaksy7EQcWMeTySh9dvcwAA3JCw References: <20120320140135.16689.49304.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <01b601cd06b0$abb21d40$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "t.petch" Cc: opsawg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds-07.txt X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 17:13:15 -0000 Thanks for catching this. I sent a query to the Secretariat.=20 Regards, Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:opsawg-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of t.petch > Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 5:47 PM > Cc: opsawg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds- > 07.txt >=20 > Um. >=20 > This announces > -07 Date : March 7, 2011 on March 20th. > Presumably it supersedes > -06 Date : 2012-03-12 from 12 Mar 12. >=20 > Or ....? >=20 > Tom Petch >=20 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Cc: > Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 3:01 PM > Subject: [OPSAWG] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds-07.txt >=20 >=20 > > A new Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > > This draft is a work item of the Operations and Management Area > Working Group > Working Group of the IETF. > > > > Title : An Overview of the IETF Network Management > Standards > > Author(s) : B. Claise, et al > > Filename : draft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds > > Pages : 102 > > Date : March 7, 2011 > > > > This document gives an overview of the IETF network management > > standards and summarizes existing and ongoing development of IETF > > standards-track network management protocols and data models. The > > document refers to other overview documents, where they exist and > > classifies the standards for easy orientation. The purpose of > this > > document is on the one hand to help system developers and users to > > select appropriate standard management protocols and data models > to > > address relevant management needs. On the other hand, the > document > > can be used as an overview and guideline by other Standard > > Development Organizations or bodies planning to use IETF > management > > technologies and data models. This document does not cover OAM > > technologies on the data-path, e.g. OAM of tunnels, MPLS-TP OAM, > and > > Pseudowire as well as the corresponding management models. > > > > > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-opsawg-management- > stds-07.txt > > > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > > > Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader > > implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the > > Internet-Draft. > > >=20 >=20 > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > --------- >=20 >=20 > > _______________________________________________ > > OPSAWG mailing list > > OPSAWG@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg > > >=20 > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > OPSAWG@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg From lichenyj@chinamobile.com Tue Mar 20 20:59:30 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8442F21E8019 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 20:59:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 3.708 X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.708 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.884, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_24=0.6, RELAY_IS_221=2.222] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yP27o1bpmbAq for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 20:59:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imss.chinamobile.com (imss.chinamobile.com [221.130.253.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 561C921E801A for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 20:59:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imss.chinamobile.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.chinamobile.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3593E677; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 11:59:19 +0800 (CST) Received: from mail.chinamobile.com (unknown [10.1.28.22]) by imss.chinamobile.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BF0EE649; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 11:59:16 +0800 (CST) Received: from PC-20120122ZWOY ([10.1.4.136]) by mail.chinamobile.com (Lotus Domino Release 6.5.6) with ESMTP id 2012032111493683-6841 ; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 11:49:36 +0800 Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 11:49:30 +0800 From: "li chen" To: opsawg X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Mailer: Foxmail 7.0.1.84[cn] Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <2012032111493046391344@chinamobile.com> X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on jtgsml01/servers/cmcc(Release 6.5.6|March 06, 2007) at 2012-03-21 11:49:36, Serialize by Router on jtgsml01/servers/cmcc(Release 6.5.6|March 06, 2007) at 2012-03-21 11:59:16, Serialize complete at 2012-03-21 11:59:16 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart615818362183_=----" X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.0.0.8231-6.8.0.1017-18786.002 X-TM-AS-Result: No--20.677-7.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--20.677-7.0-31-10;No--20.677-7.0-31-10 X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: No;No X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender: No;No Cc: Chris Liljenstolpe Subject: [OPSAWG] Fw: New Version Notification for draft-li-opsawg-loadbalance-description-00.txt X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 03:59:30 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_001_NextPart615818362183_=---- Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" aGksZ3V5cw0KDQpJIGhhdmUgc3VibWl0dGVkIGEgZHJhZnQgaW4gb3BzYXdnIGFib3V0IGxvYWRi YWxhbmNlIGRlc2NyaXB0aW9uIHJlY2VudGx5KGRyYWZ0LWxpLW9wc2F3Zy1sb2FkYmFsYW5jZS1k ZXNjcmlwdGlvbi0wMCwgQWJzdHJhY3Qgc2hvd3MgYmVsb3cpLiANCg0Kd2UgcmVhbGx5IGJlbGll dmUgaXQncyBuZWNlc3NhcnkgdG8gZXN0YWJsaXNoIHVuaXF1ZSBsb2FkIGJhbGFuY2UgTUlCcywg c28gd2UgcHJlc2VudGVkIGRyYWZ0LWxpLW9wc2F3Zy1sb2FkYmFsYW5jZS1taWItMDMgaW4gaWV0 ZiA4MnRoLiBTb21lIHBlb3BsZSBzYWlkIGxvYWQgYmFsYW5jZSBkZXNjcmlwdGlvbiBzaG91bGQg YmUgZGlzY3Vzc2VkIGZpcnN0LCAgdGhlcmVmb3JlIEkgd3JvdGUgdGhpcyBkcmFmdC4NCg0KQW55 IGZlZWRiYWNrcyBhYm91dCB0aGlzIGRyYWZ0IGlzIGFwcHJlY2lhdGVkLg0KIA0KDQoyMDEyLTAz LTIxDQoNCg0KDQoNCg0KTGkgQ2hlbg0KUmVzZWFyY2ggSW5zdGl0dXRlIG9mIENoaW5hIE1vYmls ZQ0KRmxvb3IgMTEsIERvb3IgMiwgRGFjaGVuZyBQbGF6YQ0KTm8uMjggWHVhbnd1bWVuIFdlc3Qg QXZlLCBYdWFud3UgRGlzdHJpY3QNCkJlaWppbmcgMTAwMDUzLCBDaGluYQ0KTW9iaWxlOiArODYg MTM5MTE2Nzc5NDkNCkVtYWlsOiAgbGljaGVueWpAY2hpbmFtb2JpbGUuY29tDQoNCkZyb206IGlu dGVybmV0LWRyYWZ0cw0KRGF0ZTogMjAxMi0wMy0wNSAyMjoxNg0KVG86IGxpY2hlbnlqDQpDQzog bGlsaWFueXVhbg0KU3ViamVjdDogTmV3IFZlcnNpb24gTm90aWZpY2F0aW9uIGZvciBkcmFmdC1s aS1vcHNhd2ctbG9hZGJhbGFuY2UtZGVzY3JpcHRpb24tMDAudHh0DQpBIG5ldyB2ZXJzaW9uIG9m IEktRCwgZHJhZnQtbGktb3BzYXdnLWxvYWRiYWxhbmNlLWRlc2NyaXB0aW9uLTAwLnR4dCBoYXMg YmVlbiBzdWNjZXNzZnVsbHkgc3VibWl0dGVkIGJ5IENoZW4gTGkgYW5kIHBvc3RlZCB0byB0aGUg SUVURiByZXBvc2l0b3J5Lg0KDQpGaWxlbmFtZTogIGRyYWZ0LWxpLW9wc2F3Zy1sb2FkYmFsYW5j ZS1kZXNjcmlwdGlvbg0KUmV2aXNpb246ICAwMA0KVGl0bGU6ICBMb2FkIEJhbGFuY2VyIEZ1bmN0 aW9uIERpc2NyaXB0aW9uDQpDcmVhdGlvbiBkYXRlOiAgMjAxMi0wMy0wNQ0KV0cgSUQ6ICBJbmRp dmlkdWFsIFN1Ym1pc3Npb24NCk51bWJlciBvZiBwYWdlczogNg0KDQpBYnN0cmFjdDoNCiAgIFRo aXMgZG9jdW1lbnQgcHJlc2VudHMgYSBmdW5jdGlvbmFsIGRlc2NyaXB0aW9uIG9mIHRoZSBsb2Fk IGJhbGFuY2VyLg0KICAgVGhlIExvYWQgQmFsYW5jZXIgKExCKSBpcyBhIG5ldHdvcmsgZGV2aWNl IHRvIGRpc3RyaWJ1dGUgd29ya2xvYWQNCiAgIGFjcm9zcyBtdWx0aXBsZSBzZXJ2ZXJzLCBuZXR3 b3JrIGxpbmtzLCBjZW50cmFsIHByb2Nlc3NpbmcgdW5pdHMsDQogICBkaXNrIGRyaXZlcywgb3Ig b3RoZXIgcmVzb3VyY2VzLCB0byBhY2hpZXZlIG9wdGltYWwgcmVzb3VyY2UNCiAgIHV0aWxpemF0 aW9uLCBtYXhpbWl6ZSB0aHJvdWdocHV0LCBtaW5pbWl6ZSByZXNwb25zZSB0aW1lLCBhbmQgYXZv aWQNCiAgIG92ZXJsb2FkLg0KDQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgDQoNCg0KVGhlIElF VEYgU2VjcmV0YXJpYXQ= ------=_001_NextPart615818362183_=---- Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" =EF=BB=BF
hi,guys
 
I have submitted a= draft in=20 opsawg about loadbalance description=20 recently(draft-li-opsawg-loadbalance-description-00, Abstract shows b= elow).=20
 
we really believe it's nece= ssary to=20 establish unique load balance MIBs, so we=20 presented draft-li-opsawg-loadbalance-mib-03 in ietf 82th. Some peopl= e said=20 load balance description should be discussed first,  therefore=20 I wrote this draft.
 

Any feedbacks about this draft = is=20 appreciated.

 

 
2012-03-21
 
 
Li Chen
Research Institute of China = Mobile
Floor 11, Door=20 2, Dacheng Plaza
No.28 Xuanwumen West Ave, Xuanwu District
Beijing 1= 00053,=20 China
Mobile: +86 13911677949
Email: =20 lichenyj@chinamobile.com
 
From: internet-drafts
Date: 2012-03-05 22:16
To: lichenyj
CC: lilianyuan
Subject: New Version Notification for=20 draft-li-opsawg-loadbalance-description-00.txt
A new version of I-D, draft-li-opsawg-loadba= lance-description-00.txt has been successfully submitt= ed by Chen Li and posted to the IE= TF repository.
 
Filename:  draft-li-opsawg-loadbalance-description
Revision:  00
Title:  Load Balancer Function Discription
Creation date:  2012-03-05
WG ID:  Individual Submission
Number of pages: 6
 
Abstract:
   This document presents a functi= onal description of the load balancer.
   The Load Balancer (LB) is = a network device to distribute workload
   across multiple servers, network&nbs= p;links, central processing units,
   disk drives, or other resources= , to achieve optimal resource
   utilization, maximize throughput, mi= nimize response time, and avoid
   overload.
 
           &nb= sp;            = ;            &= nbsp;           &nb= sp;            = ;            &= nbsp;        
 
 
The IETF Secretariat
------=_001_NextPart615818362183_=------ From spencer@wonderhamster.org Wed Mar 21 10:05:22 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3BF121F85A4; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 10:05:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.932 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.932 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.333, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lzd0-eBg2F1n; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 10:05:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.194]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1285A21F84F7; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 10:05:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.2.9] (cpe-76-182-255-76.tx.res.rr.com [76.182.255.76]) by mrelay.perfora.net (node=mrus2) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MGis5-1S6KVm1sxN-00EE8B; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 13:05:21 -0400 Message-ID: <4F6A0A41.3050006@wonderhamster.org> Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 12:05:05 -0500 From: Spencer Dawkins User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: apps-discuss@ietf.org, opsawg@ietf.org, tsvwg@ietf.org, cdni@ietf.org, dc@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:37kwmDyh1PGtEv1+GuK5JGGumWHU/GEI1BmdmoUug8c hWnMw72RwkhAxsiU6NG7N79qlJQ2XV6Z5awI9Cd48xzXeg5xFU 776j0JR0CGgz/Me5v58EWM1FwIxl3WeJpt1rC5lVJTGIRDApNj Y5EGXhxNayCTqYWx4P27UPyH5xJ2sNZ6axI84XY2/21DUaEibd X2jyXDdNbpDdekwqfzSMsiWaa0wMb7Wy87HIiScZG9r+c85VYG tfT5MBRwtPWjQlRfl1m4rnht0aaWMtrR59lQpOw2/QpT5+wlQu epn5Vg7T+8MSL4TRS9TDCWCg16mEyA/Z8zH6ksI23CL/SnqZNv P5TKeqNw8EBjZjP2pah70i10iOL6ag912CaluRy5Y Subject: [OPSAWG] Announcing the i2aex BoF X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 17:05:22 -0000 Hi all, David Harrington asked me to act as BoF Shepherd for the Infrastructure-to-application Information Exposure (i2aex) BoF, and I wanted to make sure that a broad community of interest was aware of this BoF, especially since the BoF is scheduled for Monday, Afternoon Session 1, at 1300 PM. Preliminary discussion has been going on for some time now on the altoext@ietf.org mailing list, mainly among people in some way involved in the standardization the ALTO protocol. In order to have a conversation that's as productive as possible in Paris, we would really like to invite people who are involved on different sides of the same problem to bring their perspective as well. Here's a short description, with the usual pointers. Follow-ups to altoext@ietf.org, please. The goal of the (non-WG-forming) BoF is to investigate infrastructure- to-application information exposure and communications requirements in fully controlled (e.g., data centers) or partially controlled environments (e.g. CDN). Existing mechanisms such as SNMP, IGP, BGP and other protocols that monitor and manage infrastructure may reveal much if not all of the possibly required information, but are typically only accessible to the operators of the network infrastructure. CDNs and data center applications have some requirements to operate over the Internet, possibly between administrative domains. On the other hand, the ALTO protocol was initially designed to address peer-to-peer application requirements, but was designed to be extensible and could be quite easily adapted to export the pieces of information that CDN and data center applications would benefit from. The BoF will thus primarily seek an answer to the following questions: + do CDN and data center applications require (or benefit in a significant way from) accessing to information that cannot be made available through existing mechanisms in a practical way? + is an extension to the ALTO protocol (or to any other protocol) a viable way to address such requirements? Additional information about the topic is available on the BoF wiki entry: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/#Transport The provisional agenda for the meeting is online at: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/agenda/agenda-83-i2aex.txt From vumip1@gmail.com Wed Mar 21 10:50:32 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C90421E808C; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 10:50:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.492 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.492 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.560, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_HTML_USL_OBFU=1.666] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Wd0wZ7JN4zPv; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 10:50:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com (mail-yx0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 381DB21E8040; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 10:50:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by yenm5 with SMTP id m5so1308124yen.31 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 10:50:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=zC0cm5QYiRjo5405z/iXCy1JqbVw+rHCtRUW70A0pPs=; b=NP27W+seIGqA/JW8UnZjgNF7vOZqgqPG14AV1VMOkwJNGyLAd/ZqB+4FqhiGkRyY4s aOIeEkHFf1l2GZq6iOhKxR1r8yAoLez+rpVVtfDSZU2D+uICDGnDRah5AlIwRx25Rjkd qwjgTH5llq7Ck5jbhHKg4xlNRpXG2yNAaWMdRnvj3vI5r5ESAZCqBxN5Ks6/VMmTo1yG 36BoxmMVlnNOeK/7oAgGV6uauoWZyYA/gfbTTq2u9lR6Uyizye0S1RLbZVedXLo+T+9G jRTYP8qX1ROLmY/r1jpHpIMkOi07DC0n3DvoRSvqoaYQhows1SrKqq/wY+0Jds0HQs1U JBhw== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.182.54.114 with SMTP id i18mr5776882obp.49.1332352230691; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 10:50:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.182.12.234 with HTTP; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 10:50:30 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4F6A0A41.3050006@wonderhamster.org> References: <4F6A0A41.3050006@wonderhamster.org> Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 13:50:30 -0400 Message-ID: From: Bhumip Khasnabish To: Spencer Dawkins Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=14dae93a122f6d130b04bbc46d8a Cc: dc@ietf.org, opsawg@ietf.org, cdni@ietf.org, tsvwg@ietf.org, apps-discuss@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] [dc] Announcing the i2aex BoF X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 17:50:32 -0000 --14dae93a122f6d130b04bbc46d8a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi Spencer, Is this similar to Cloud Infrastructure Management Interface (CIMI) Model and REST Interface over HTTP An Interface for Managing Cloud Infrastructure( http://dmtf.org/standards/cloud)? What is the trigger for this?! Thanks for clarifying. Best. Bhumip On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Spencer Dawkins wrote: > Hi all, > > David Harrington asked me to act as BoF Shepherd for the > Infrastructure-to-application Information Exposure (i2aex) BoF, and I > wanted to make sure that a broad community of interest was aware of this > BoF, especially since the BoF is scheduled for Monday, Afternoon Session 1, > at 1300 PM. > > Preliminary discussion has been going on for some time now on the > altoext@ietf.org mailing list, mainly among people in some way involved > in the standardization the ALTO protocol. In order to have a conversation > that's as productive as possible in Paris, we would really like to invite > people who are involved on different sides of the same problem to bring > their perspective as well. > > Here's a short description, with the usual pointers. Follow-ups to > altoext@ietf.org, please. > > The goal of the (non-WG-forming) BoF is to investigate infrastructure- > to-application information exposure and communications requirements in > fully controlled (e.g., data centers) or partially controlled > environments (e.g. CDN). Existing mechanisms such as SNMP, IGP, BGP and > other protocols that monitor and manage infrastructure may reveal much > if not all of the possibly required information, but are typically only > accessible to the operators of the network infrastructure. CDNs and data > center applications have some requirements to operate over the Internet, > possibly between administrative domains. On the other hand, the ALTO > protocol was initially designed to address peer-to-peer application > requirements, but was designed to be extensible and could be quite > easily adapted to export the pieces of information that CDN and data > center applications would benefit from. > > The BoF will thus primarily seek an answer to the following questions: > > + do CDN and data center applications require (or benefit in a > significant way from) accessing to information that cannot be made > available through existing mechanisms in a practical way? > > + is an extension to the ALTO protocol (or to any other protocol) a > viable way to address such requirements? > > Additional information about the topic is available on the BoF wiki > entry: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/**bof/trac/#Transport > > The provisional agenda for the meeting is online at: > http://www.ietf.org/**proceedings/83/agenda/agenda-**83-i2aex.txt > ______________________________**_________________ > dc mailing list > dc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/dc > --14dae93a122f6d130b04bbc46d8a Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Spencer,
=A0
Is this similar to Cloud Infrastructure Management Interface (CIMI) Model and REST Interface= over HTTP An Interface for Managing Cloud In= frastructure (http://dmtf.org/standards/cloud)?
=A0
What is the trigger for this?!
=A0
Thanks for clarifying.
=A0
Best.
=A0
Bhumip
=A0

=A0



On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Spencer Dawkins= <spencer= @wonderhamster.org> wrote:
Hi all,

David Harrington asked= me to act as BoF Shepherd for the Infrastructure-to-application Informatio= n Exposure (i2aex) BoF, and I wanted to make sure that a broad community of= interest was aware of this BoF, especially since the BoF is scheduled for = Monday, Afternoon Session 1, at 1300 PM.

Preliminary discussion has been going on for some time now on the altoext@ietf.org maili= ng list, mainly among people in some way involved in the standardization th= e ALTO protocol. In order to have a conversation that's as productive a= s possible in Paris, we would really like to invite people who are involved= on different sides of the same problem to bring their perspective as well.=

Here's a short description, with the usual pointers. Follow-ups to = altoext@ietf.org,= please.

The goal of the (non-WG-forming) BoF is to investigate infr= astructure-
to-application information exposure and communications requirements in
f= ully controlled (e.g., data centers) or partially controlled
environment= s (e.g. CDN). Existing mechanisms such as SNMP, IGP, BGP and
other proto= cols that monitor and manage infrastructure may reveal much
if not all of the possibly required information, but are typically only
= accessible to the operators of the network infrastructure. CDNs and datacenter applications have some requirements to operate over the Internet, possibly between administrative domains. On the other hand, the ALTO
pro= tocol was initially designed to address peer-to-peer application
require= ments, but was designed to be extensible and could be quite
easily adapt= ed to export the pieces of information that CDN and data
center applications would benefit from.

The BoF will thus primarily = seek an answer to the following questions:

=A0+ do CDN and data cent= er applications require (or benefit in a
=A0 =A0significant way from) ac= cessing to information that cannot be made
=A0 =A0available through existing mechanisms in a practical way?

=A0= + is an extension to the ALTO protocol (or to any other protocol) a
=A0 = =A0viable way to address such requirements?

Additional information a= bout the topic is available on the BoF wiki
entry: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/#Transport

T= he provisional agenda for the meeting is online at:
htt= p://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/agenda/agenda-83-i2aex.txt
_______________________________________________
dc mailing listdc@ietf.org
https://w= ww.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dc


=A0 --14dae93a122f6d130b04bbc46d8a-- From ietfdbh@comcast.net Thu Mar 22 09:51:07 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECEC321F8681 for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 09:51:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.019 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.019 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.020, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_62=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LrwLhdpj439G for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 09:50:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from qmta05.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta05.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.62.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D93621F8671 for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 09:50:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from omta14.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.60]) by qmta05.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id ogow1i0091HzFnQ55gqvrX; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 16:50:55 +0000 Received: from [192.168.1.33] ([71.233.85.150]) by omta14.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id ogqd1i0073Ecudz3agqlo1; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 16:50:55 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.14.0.111121 Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 12:50:34 -0400 From: David Harrington To: Bhumip Khasnabish , Spencer Dawkins Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [dc] Announcing the i2aex BoF In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org, opsawg@ietf.org, cdni@ietf.org, Tsvwg , dc@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] [dc] Announcing the i2aex BoF X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 16:51:07 -0000 Hi Bhumip, Your input would be more helpful if you did the research to answer the question your self and prepared a detailed analysis for the community to review (I.e., write a draft). Is this similar to dmtf's CIMI? I suggest you read the documents on the agenda and read the CIMI spec and compare them to see if they are or are not similar. My experience has been that DMTF works top-down - they tend to develop and abstract architecture first and then encourage implementers to develop detailed specs that fit within the architecture. That sometimes leads to abstract systems that implementers choose not to implement, because the architecture is too all-inclusive, or implementers cherry-pick the features, with the result that different implementations choose different feature sets and then do not interoperate. The IETF uses a bottom-up model; we prefer detailed proposals based on actual experience in the field, and developing highly focused specifications with a small number of mandatory-to-implement features, to ensure cross-vendor interoperation. The result can be messy as compared to a nice top-down architecture, but the IETF has been very successful using this approach, and the Internet community seems to want to keep using this approach. Is the REST interface similar to interfaces being proposed in i2aex? Have you done a feature comparison between the i2aex proposals and the DMTF proposals? I have a concern that the DMTF REST interface might be based on a DMTF abstract architectural model that may or may not actually be used by operators in real-world deployments. A major part of this BOF is to get feedback from real-world operators about what bottom=up technologies they actually use in real-world deployments to mitigate the problems of CDN and DC optimization, and whether operators would benefit from IETF standardization of these bottom-up optimization approaches. Ultimately, the i2aex BOF is about understanding whether IETF should develop extensions to Internet protocols to meet CDN and DC optimization needs when running over the Internet. It is not about developing an abstract all-encompassing architecture for managing clouds. So I have doubts about how much actual overlap exists between the DMTF proposals and the i2aex proposals. I do encourage people involved in this effort to consider whether there is overlap, but they should avoid being sidetracked into some mission that is not an IETF or i2aex BOF mission. My $.04 as Responsible AD for this BOF. -- David Harrington Director, Transport Area Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Ietfdbh@comcast.net +1-603-828-1401 On 3/21/12 1:50 PM, "Bhumip Khasnabish" wrote: >Hi Spencer, > >Is this similar to Cloud Infrastructure Management Interface (CIMI) Model >and REST Interface over HTTP An Interface for Managing Cloud >Infrastructure (http://dmtf.org/standards/cloud)? > >What is the trigger for this?! > >Thanks for clarifying. > >Best. > >Bhumip > > > > >On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Spencer Dawkins > wrote: > >Hi all, > >David Harrington asked me to act as BoF Shepherd for the >Infrastructure-to-application Information Exposure (i2aex) BoF, and I >wanted to make sure that a broad community of interest was aware of this >BoF, especially since the BoF is scheduled for Monday, Afternoon Session >1, at 1300 PM. > >Preliminary discussion has been going on for some time now on the >altoext@ietf.org mailing list, mainly among people in some way involved >in the standardization the ALTO protocol. In order to have a conversation >that's as productive as possible in Paris, we would really like to invite >people who are involved on different sides of the same problem to bring >their perspective as well. > >Here's a short description, with the usual pointers. Follow-ups to >altoext@ietf.org, please. > >The goal of the (non-WG-forming) BoF is to investigate infrastructure- >to-application information exposure and communications requirements in >fully controlled (e.g., data centers) or partially controlled >environments (e.g. CDN). Existing mechanisms such as SNMP, IGP, BGP and >other protocols that monitor and manage infrastructure may reveal much >if not all of the possibly required information, but are typically only >accessible to the operators of the network infrastructure. CDNs and data >center applications have some requirements to operate over the Internet, >possibly between administrative domains. On the other hand, the ALTO >protocol was initially designed to address peer-to-peer application >requirements, but was designed to be extensible and could be quite >easily adapted to export the pieces of information that CDN and data >center applications would benefit from. > >The BoF will thus primarily seek an answer to the following questions: > > + do CDN and data center applications require (or benefit in a > significant way from) accessing to information that cannot be made > available through existing mechanisms in a practical way? > > + is an extension to the ALTO protocol (or to any other protocol) a > viable way to address such requirements? > >Additional information about the topic is available on the BoF wiki >entry: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/#Transport > >The provisional agenda for the meeting is online at: >http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/agenda/agenda-83-i2aex.txt >_______________________________________________ >dc mailing list >dc@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dc > > > > > > From linda.dunbar@huawei.com Thu Mar 22 12:43:09 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5638621E8028; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 12:43:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.553 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.553 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.046, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pM24XEoCbLuy; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 12:43:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dfwrgout.huawei.com (dfwrgout.huawei.com [206.16.17.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBA3121F85D6; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 12:43:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.9.243 (EHLO dfweml201-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.9.243]) by dfwrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.2.3-GA FastPath) with ESMTP id AEP68367; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 15:43:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DFWEML404-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.203) by dfweml201-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.9.107) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 12:41:57 -0700 Received: from DFWEML505-MBX.china.huawei.com ([10.124.31.100]) by dfweml404-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.193.5.203]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 12:42:00 -0700 From: Linda Dunbar To: Spencer Dawkins , "apps-discuss@ietf.org" , "opsawg@ietf.org" , "tsvwg@ietf.org" , "cdni@ietf.org" , "dc@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [dc] Announcing the i2aex BoF Thread-Index: AQHNB4Tsxr8YheQTEUmLhaS9a9PrIpZ2th0g Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 19:42:00 +0000 Message-ID: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F632E4F713@dfweml505-mbx> References: <4F6A0A41.3050006@wonderhamster.org> In-Reply-To: <4F6A0A41.3050006@wonderhamster.org> Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.47.144.61] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 17:32:06 -0700 Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] [dc] Announcing the i2aex BoF X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 19:43:09 -0000 Are there specific applications in mind for the Intra-structure to expose t= o?=20 Linda > -----Original Message----- > From: dc-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dc-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Spencer Dawkins > Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 12:05 PM > To: apps-discuss@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org; tsvwg@ietf.org; > cdni@ietf.org; dc@ietf.org > Subject: [dc] Announcing the i2aex BoF >=20 > Hi all, >=20 > David Harrington asked me to act as BoF Shepherd for the > Infrastructure-to-application Information Exposure (i2aex) BoF, and I > wanted to make sure that a broad community of interest was aware of > this > BoF, especially since the BoF is scheduled for Monday, Afternoon > Session > 1, at 1300 PM. >=20 > Preliminary discussion has been going on for some time now on the > altoext@ietf.org mailing list, mainly among people in some way involved > in the standardization the ALTO protocol. In order to have a > conversation that's as productive as possible in Paris, we would really > like to invite people who are involved on different sides of the same > problem to bring their perspective as well. >=20 > Here's a short description, with the usual pointers. Follow-ups to > altoext@ietf.org, please. >=20 > The goal of the (non-WG-forming) BoF is to investigate infrastructure- > to-application information exposure and communications requirements in > fully controlled (e.g., data centers) or partially controlled > environments (e.g. CDN). Existing mechanisms such as SNMP, IGP, BGP and > other protocols that monitor and manage infrastructure may reveal much > if not all of the possibly required information, but are typically only > accessible to the operators of the network infrastructure. CDNs and > data > center applications have some requirements to operate over the Internet, > possibly between administrative domains. On the other hand, the ALTO > protocol was initially designed to address peer-to-peer application > requirements, but was designed to be extensible and could be quite > easily adapted to export the pieces of information that CDN and data > center applications would benefit from. >=20 > The BoF will thus primarily seek an answer to the following questions: >=20 > + do CDN and data center applications require (or benefit in a > significant way from) accessing to information that cannot be made > available through existing mechanisms in a practical way? >=20 > + is an extension to the ALTO protocol (or to any other protocol) a > viable way to address such requirements? >=20 > Additional information about the topic is available on the BoF wiki > entry: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/#Transport >=20 > The provisional agenda for the meeting is online at: > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/agenda/agenda-83-i2aex.txt > _______________________________________________ > dc mailing list > dc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dc From vkg@bell-labs.com Fri Mar 23 08:35:00 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E86D221F851A; Fri, 23 Mar 2012 08:34:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.988 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.988 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.389, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ogNqsSmsbBGd; Fri, 23 Mar 2012 08:34:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ihemail3.lucent.com (ihemail3.lucent.com [135.245.0.37]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7324321F8518; Fri, 23 Mar 2012 08:34:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usnavsmail2.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsmail2.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.10]) by ihemail3.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id q2NFXhLm011780 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 23 Mar 2012 10:33:43 -0500 (CDT) Received: from umail.lucent.com (umail-ce2.ndc.lucent.com [135.3.40.63]) by usnavsmail2.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id q2NFXgUK024564 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 23 Mar 2012 10:33:43 -0500 Received: from shoonya.ih.lucent.com (shoonya.ih.lucent.com [135.185.238.235]) by umail.lucent.com (8.13.8/TPES) with ESMTP id q2NFXg6h019406; Fri, 23 Mar 2012 10:33:42 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <4F6C98F6.5020302@bell-labs.com> Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 10:38:30 -0500 From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" Organization: Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:10.0.1) Gecko/20120209 Thunderbird/10.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Linda Dunbar References: <4F6A0A41.3050006@wonderhamster.org> <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F632E4F713@dfweml505-mbx> In-Reply-To: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F632E4F713@dfweml505-mbx> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.37 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 135.3.39.10 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 16:07:17 -0700 Cc: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" , "dc@ietf.org" , "opsawg@ietf.org" , "cdni@ietf.org" , "tsvwg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] [apps-discuss] [dc] Announcing the i2aex BoF X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 15:35:00 -0000 On 03/22/2012 02:42 PM, Linda Dunbar wrote: > Are there specific applications in mind for the Intra-structure to > expose to? Yes; there are what we call 3 high-level use cases ("applications" in your terminology above). These are: CDN, data centers, and large bandwidth. Please see http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/agenda/agenda-83-i2aex.txt for an agenda and a reading list. Thanks! - vijay -- Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent 1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA) Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / vijay.gurbani@alcatel-lucent.com Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/ From melinda.shore@gmail.com Mon Mar 26 06:45:45 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C869D21F8606 for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 06:45:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fQH1rT5Oo90q for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 06:45:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gy0-f172.google.com (mail-gy0-f172.google.com [209.85.160.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 307E521F85AF for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 06:45:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ghbg16 with SMTP id g16so4205350ghb.31 for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 06:45:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=FukNrhC9Horz8Q44e70TpQe2B3NhyuEghelV1QDfPUg=; b=eKgQl27Kv+qN/4d1rMh5BXcYUUOlPbojm2xe1BO0FH9BAYGwn5kZOeObxq43SPA8Mr 5LUaGAkKGpqoU6jKiNBv9JIWTc00l9LbVSbh15WDzuMMX29lgNqstWdABUOpTMd5fOQL HWDey8N7IxG8WH1y+2iExexQXyaMHcON0l1TNizqtR142wLSlLTWa1eCa+liTxSUAR3i c0SL79riK11S/Gfp9Cn5sosEjb5od38IfWjqwni1Coi1vpTfEtp23ma9T1wx1Qprn3UL BxYO77CUCM/BuB2YdusDwJkMTgkx/gjsNdR6NbMrZFjhguQH0DGjgRZyzfkXFZ3FkS6t INcA== Received: by 10.68.125.168 with SMTP id mr8mr53460679pbb.21.1332769544511; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 06:45:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from polypro.local (66-230-81-245-rb1.fai.dsl.dynamic.acsalaska.net. [66.230.81.245]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id w4sm959723pbf.74.2012.03.26.06.45.43 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 26 Mar 2012 06:45:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4F707305.7040701@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 05:45:41 -0800 From: Melinda Shore User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.27) Gecko/20120216 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.19 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "opsawg@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [OPSAWG] Hypervisor MIB document X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:45:46 -0000 A few weeks ago Juergen posted the -00 draft of a hypervisor MIB. One concern about doing this work in the IETF is making sure we've got input from people who actually build hypervisors, and that they're interested in implementing a standard MIB. So, at this point we're interested in feedback from the mailing list - who's interested, is there interest in the vendor community, is this something that operators would see as a requirement, etc.? Thanks, Melinda From ning.so@verizon.com Mon Mar 26 06:51:24 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79DA821E808B for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 06:51:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7x0NJtlNdVvt for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 06:51:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fldsmtpe03.verizon.com (fldsmtpe03.verizon.com [140.108.26.142]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A28721E8013 for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 06:51:23 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: false Received: from unknown (HELO fldsmtpi01.verizon.com) ([166.68.71.143]) by fldsmtpe03.verizon.com with ESMTP; 26 Mar 2012 13:51:22 +0000 From: "So, Ning" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,320,1330905600"; d="scan'208";a="244629157" Received: from fhdp1lumxc7hb04.verizon.com (HELO FHDP1LUMXC7HB04.us.one.verizon.com) ([166.68.59.191]) by fldsmtpi01.verizon.com with ESMTP; 26 Mar 2012 13:51:22 +0000 Received: from FHDP1LUMXC7V41.us.one.verizon.com ([169.254.1.11]) by FHDP1LUMXC7HB04.us.one.verizon.com ([166.68.59.191]) with mapi; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 09:51:22 -0400 To: Melinda Shore , "opsawg@ietf.org" Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 09:51:21 -0400 Thread-Topic: [OPSAWG] Hypervisor MIB document Thread-Index: Ac0LVsEkJeqHAvHXRSiNJoiANzlE9gAAJxzA Message-ID: <6665BC1FEA04AB47B1F75FA641C43BC0A0B8C76C@FHDP1LUMXC7V41.us.one.verizon.com> References: <4F707305.7040701@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4F707305.7040701@gmail.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Hypervisor MIB document X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:51:24 -0000 Yes, I do see value in the area of work as provider/operator. =A0 Best regards, =A0 Ning So Verizon Corporate Technology (office) 972-729-7905 (Cell) 972-955-0914 =A0 -----Original Message----- From: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:opsawg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of= Melinda Shore Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 8:46 AM To: opsawg@ietf.org Subject: [OPSAWG] Hypervisor MIB document A few weeks ago Juergen posted the -00 draft of a hypervisor MIB. One concern about doing this work in the IETF is making sure we've got inpu= t from people who actually build hypervisors, and that they're interested i= n implementing a standard MIB. So, at this point we're interested in feedb= ack from the mailing list - who's interested, is there interest in the vend= or community, is this something that operators would see as a requirement, = etc.? Thanks, Melinda _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg From melinda.shore@gmail.com Mon Mar 26 06:53:02 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1ADCE21F84B6 for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 06:53:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9jLgR12Nsh0V for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 06:53:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pb0-f44.google.com (mail-pb0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C684921E80A4 for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 06:52:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pbbrq13 with SMTP id rq13so6287695pbb.31 for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 06:52:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=5wFDvxihosiu161oBquIK/RBWkQhzr3V0+sNgZsSNAI=; b=IxkTgOZMJ27b8fWbJQu7MepBg+qlQdgPYGSye3xYQYRgAL+Kqdzh7LWGoo8pwwPSSw 9K/MbMkUmY1e7xMPTgxhEwiQfCh0LGe35oLuvALTvufByKVVBjWCFhfG0qjoBXqhoybn TL2bNtJ5vU76T8e9X6k7uvrWpsAw+5+oTawjYg0rq1tE4FxMRlBKGvFBJ8ZmSH73pe+5 lBPiVmqn0asMgWxxda4IGsMKRvA7USPx8miVzLAy+wFZTxvWLlyefrshy+oTotIZWxeZ 0bBk3SB+GpUupsgONwuwniyL8gF5ZiacZa2fYH2WZbctTNpnxq1N2aeeMVZ2HWRohE3v HdQg== Received: by 10.68.201.98 with SMTP id jz2mr53140465pbc.97.1332769962629; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 06:52:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from polypro.local (66-230-81-245-rb1.fai.dsl.dynamic.acsalaska.net. [66.230.81.245]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id f5sm12585784pbe.26.2012.03.26.06.52.41 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 26 Mar 2012 06:52:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4F7074A8.2050105@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 05:52:40 -0800 From: Melinda Shore User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.27) Gecko/20120216 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.19 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "So, Ning" References: <4F707305.7040701@gmail.com> <6665BC1FEA04AB47B1F75FA641C43BC0A0B8C76C@FHDP1LUMXC7V41.us.one.verizon.com> In-Reply-To: <6665BC1FEA04AB47B1F75FA641C43BC0A0B8C76C@FHDP1LUMXC7V41.us.one.verizon.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "opsawg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Hypervisor MIB document X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:53:02 -0000 On 3/26/12 5:51 AM, So, Ning wrote: > Yes, I do see value in the area of work as provider/operator. Is this something that you'd include as a requirement for a purchase? Melinda From ning.so@verizon.com Mon Mar 26 07:01:35 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77A9C21F872F for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 07:01:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6CW8csq+7p1e for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 07:01:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fldsmtpe01.verizon.com (fldsmtpe01.verizon.com [140.108.26.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 633A421F8608 for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 07:01:34 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: false Received: from unknown (HELO fldsmtpi02.verizon.com) ([166.68.71.144]) by fldsmtpe01.verizon.com with ESMTP; 26 Mar 2012 14:01:28 +0000 From: "So, Ning" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,320,1330905600"; d="scan'208";a="242620767" Received: from fhdp1lumxc7hb05.verizon.com (HELO FHDP1LUMXC7HB05.us.one.verizon.com) ([166.68.59.192]) by fldsmtpi02.verizon.com with ESMTP; 26 Mar 2012 14:01:28 +0000 Received: from FHDP1LUMXC7V41.us.one.verizon.com ([169.254.1.11]) by FHDP1LUMXC7HB05.us.one.verizon.com ([166.68.59.192]) with mapi; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 10:01:28 -0400 To: Melinda Shore Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 10:01:27 -0400 Thread-Topic: [OPSAWG] Hypervisor MIB document Thread-Index: Ac0LV7g7sy30FgctQ4eVwqePSD4mNgAAC64g Message-ID: <6665BC1FEA04AB47B1F75FA641C43BC0A0B8C782@FHDP1LUMXC7V41.us.one.verizon.com> References: <4F707305.7040701@gmail.com> <6665BC1FEA04AB47B1F75FA641C43BC0A0B8C76C@FHDP1LUMXC7V41.us.one.verizon.com> <4F7074A8.2050105@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4F7074A8.2050105@gmail.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "opsawg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Hypervisor MIB document X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:01:35 -0000 The work in the area has just begun, so it is premature to list them as req= uirements of purchase immediately. As you correctly pointed out, hyperviso= r and server vendor's interest of development is an important component in = this work as well. I would really like to see some active discussion and c= onsensus on this topic. =20 =A0 Best regards, =A0 Ning So Verizon Corporate Technology (office) 972-729-7905 (Cell) 972-955-0914 =A0 -----Original Message----- From: Melinda Shore [mailto:melinda.shore@gmail.com]=20 Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 8:53 AM To: So, Ning Cc: opsawg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Hypervisor MIB document On 3/26/12 5:51 AM, So, Ning wrote: > Yes, I do see value in the area of work as provider/operator. Is this something that you'd include as a requirement for a purchase? Melinda From bschlies@cisco.com Mon Mar 26 07:14:15 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53E3021F878A for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 07:14:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -8.104 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.104 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.494, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xlaq-YLvlnET for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 07:14:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8058021F8469 for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 07:14:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=bschlies@cisco.com; l=1367; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1332771254; x=1333980854; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=7+Jls3CzydpJi8X4gJRG2R5hpnx73SqkhU4nbAsnFWc=; b=DSTqlTrmEtnm7G4Q+FdnhSzLYHHMQD0eQ+fR2nNP503FBLx4EFP0AxAQ 6zBpFtzpXjaRWeRElDPQRmwevOTlbabeKqFx1QXvYuhqUiUnUyaA6yVsO 7UIb747UbP0OrWK8eYg0b0OV42RI1AWyeFu/9M9mEd3wkkF609DfQkTvT Y=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApIHAIR5cE+Q/khR/2dsb2JhbABBA4MOtRuBB4IJAQEBAwEBAQEPASc0CwUHAgILEQQBAQEnBxYLBh8JCAYTIodjBQuaA55XBASJbYQOgkZjBJVghW+FQoMUgWiCaQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,650,1325462400"; d="scan'208";a="133372364" Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com ([144.254.72.81]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Mar 2012 14:14:07 +0000 Received: from [192.168.8.10] (dhcp-10-55-82-134.cisco.com [10.55.82.134]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q2QEE6GE001449; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:14:06 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Benson Schliesser In-Reply-To: <6665BC1FEA04AB47B1F75FA641C43BC0A0B8C782@FHDP1LUMXC7V41.us.one.verizon.com> Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 16:14:06 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <4F707305.7040701@gmail.com> <6665BC1FEA04AB47B1F75FA641C43BC0A0B8C76C@FHDP1LUMXC7V41.us.one.verizon.com> <4F7074A8.2050105@gmail.com> <6665BC1FEA04AB47B1F75FA641C43BC0A0B8C782@FHDP1LUMXC7V41.us.one.verizon.com> To: "So, Ning" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: "opsawg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Hypervisor MIB document X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:14:15 -0000 Hi, Ning. As a point of clarification: Do you find value in a MIB specifically for = SNMP, or rather in a common management model? E.g. would YANG / NetConf = or some other management model be sufficient (or preferred)? Cheers, -Benson On Mar 26, 2012, at 4:01 PM, So, Ning wrote: > The work in the area has just begun, so it is premature to list them = as requirements of purchase immediately. As you correctly pointed out, = hypervisor and server vendor's interest of development is an important = component in this work as well. I would really like to see some active = discussion and consensus on this topic. =20 >=20 > =20 > Best regards, > =20 > Ning So > Verizon Corporate Technology > (office) 972-729-7905 > (Cell) 972-955-0914 > =20 >=20 >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Melinda Shore [mailto:melinda.shore@gmail.com]=20 > Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 8:53 AM > To: So, Ning > Cc: opsawg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Hypervisor MIB document >=20 > On 3/26/12 5:51 AM, So, Ning wrote: >> Yes, I do see value in the area of work as provider/operator. >=20 > Is this something that you'd include as a requirement for a purchase? >=20 > Melinda >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > OPSAWG@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg From panda@hongo.wide.ad.jp Mon Mar 26 07:20:29 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E211421E803C for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 07:20:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.904 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.904 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, RELAY_IS_203=0.994] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id x3uNb0diCBHD for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 07:20:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.hongo.wide.ad.jp (mail.hongo.wide.ad.jp [203.178.135.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E17DA21E8013 for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 07:20:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhcp-236-239.elab.ic.i.u-tokyo.ac.jp (dhcp-236-239.elab.ic.i.u-tokyo.ac.jp [133.11.236.239]) by mail.hongo.wide.ad.jp (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 80EEA108E4C0; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 23:20:27 +0900 (JST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: Hirochika Asai In-Reply-To: <6665BC1FEA04AB47B1F75FA641C43BC0A0B8C782@FHDP1LUMXC7V41.us.one.verizon.com> Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 23:20:26 +0900 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <2FAFA474-1F24-40A6-9D54-9CC0A1EC5252@hongo.wide.ad.jp> References: <4F707305.7040701@gmail.com> <6665BC1FEA04AB47B1F75FA641C43BC0A0B8C76C@FHDP1LUMXC7V41.us.one.verizon.com> <4F7074A8.2050105@gmail.com> <6665BC1FEA04AB47B1F75FA641C43BC0A0B8C782@FHDP1LUMXC7V41.us.one.verizon.com> To: "So, Ning" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257) Cc: "opsawg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Hypervisor MIB document X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:20:30 -0000 Hi, I'm interested in the area of hypervisor MIB. Actually, we have also worked on a hypervisor MIB document and implemented an SNMP agent running with libvirt. Unfortunately the documentation process is delaying though a prototype implementation is running on our operating hypervisors. We will summarize a specification of our implementation in a couple of weeks, and post it to this mailing list. I'm sorry that I cannot go to this IETF, but if the WG members are also interested in this area, we will summarize specifications of our implementation in a couple of weeks, and post it to this mailing list. Hirochika On Mar 26, 2012, at 11:01 PM, So, Ning wrote: > The work in the area has just begun, so it is premature to list them = as requirements of purchase immediately. As you correctly pointed out, = hypervisor and server vendor's interest of development is an important = component in this work as well. I would really like to see some active = discussion and consensus on this topic. =20 >=20 > =20 > Best regards, > =20 > Ning So > Verizon Corporate Technology > (office) 972-729-7905 > (Cell) 972-955-0914 > =20 >=20 >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Melinda Shore [mailto:melinda.shore@gmail.com]=20 > Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 8:53 AM > To: So, Ning > Cc: opsawg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Hypervisor MIB document >=20 > On 3/26/12 5:51 AM, So, Ning wrote: >> Yes, I do see value in the area of work as provider/operator. >=20 > Is this something that you'd include as a requirement for a purchase? >=20 > Melinda >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > OPSAWG@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg >=20 --=20 Hirochika Asai , The University of Tokyo From melinda.shore@gmail.com Mon Mar 26 07:26:13 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71EAD21E80A9 for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 07:26:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dj8oHzipGj2q for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 07:26:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pb0-f44.google.com (mail-pb0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFFEB21E80A5 for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 07:26:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pbbrq13 with SMTP id rq13so6320476pbb.31 for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 07:26:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=LRyss6pDwSpmV+VeA5GrQDLJku+mYrlRu+q/m1jgbWU=; b=zACyVNbNrGB1WeSGQP2IeXRMACqC3pPVk1vCpNXZqYuWYImhsWShX0d8nwOs5ANU1J Jx1zGG1jsvhNlJOmnXOVXViumTweSDXvYz4aqaVdJOx4GpYkF4dbCBaUf/E9TvGMJ32F 9wuPkDhsB/uU1p/tA/prbonD2Hy1CDSu5HrZoxk0LoWc0nQMK/6pOsjvkVugmXcS95eJ Nu4fzhrGHRkUcXp5o7y21MgjQORCKN8Y3SvhxQCya1FSH4VS1KJ7A7zPQ10VGD5GxPEp tInB4oyOj9VUPHsL6eouLAFfLCOQ62T3Pw0gvBwsksMYhXARTldnEeSwHxWDU14qJr7R l6mQ== Received: by 10.68.220.104 with SMTP id pv8mr5281341pbc.153.1332771972533; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 07:26:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from polypro.local (66-230-81-245-rb1.fai.dsl.dynamic.acsalaska.net. [66.230.81.245]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id r10sm12646679pbf.22.2012.03.26.07.26.10 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 26 Mar 2012 07:26:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4F707C81.8030501@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 06:26:09 -0800 From: Melinda Shore User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.27) Gecko/20120216 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.19 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Hirochika Asai References: <4F707305.7040701@gmail.com> <6665BC1FEA04AB47B1F75FA641C43BC0A0B8C76C@FHDP1LUMXC7V41.us.one.verizon.com> <4F7074A8.2050105@gmail.com> <6665BC1FEA04AB47B1F75FA641C43BC0A0B8C782@FHDP1LUMXC7V41.us.one.verizon.com> <2FAFA474-1F24-40A6-9D54-9CC0A1EC5252@hongo.wide.ad.jp> In-Reply-To: <2FAFA474-1F24-40A6-9D54-9CC0A1EC5252@hongo.wide.ad.jp> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "opsawg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Hypervisor MIB document X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:26:13 -0000 On 3/26/12 6:20 AM, Hirochika Asai wrote: > I'm interested in the area of hypervisor MIB. Actually, we have also > worked on a hypervisor MIB document and implemented an SNMP agent > running with libvirt. Unfortunately the documentation process is > delaying though a prototype implementation is running on our operating > hypervisors. We will summarize a specification of our implementation > in a couple of weeks, and post it to this mailing list. This is excellent - exactly the sort of feedback we're looking for. Have you had an opportunity to review http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schoenw-opsawg-vm-mib-00? Thanks, Melinda From ning.so@verizon.com Mon Mar 26 07:27:18 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECA8A21E80A3 for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 07:27:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6f7zReAmVKym for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 07:27:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fldsmtpe02.verizon.com (fldsmtpe02.verizon.com [140.108.26.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D81121E80AC for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 07:27:18 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: false Received: from unknown (HELO fldsmtpi03.verizon.com) ([166.68.71.145]) by fldsmtpe02.verizon.com with ESMTP; 26 Mar 2012 14:27:12 +0000 From: "So, Ning" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,595,1325462400"; d="scan'208";a="241691635" Received: from fhdp1lumxc7hb01.verizon.com (HELO FHDP1LUMXC7HB01.us.one.verizon.com) ([166.68.59.188]) by fldsmtpi03.verizon.com with ESMTP; 26 Mar 2012 14:27:12 +0000 Received: from FHDP1LUMXC7V41.us.one.verizon.com ([169.254.1.11]) by FHDP1LUMXC7HB01.us.one.verizon.com ([166.68.59.188]) with mapi; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 10:27:12 -0400 To: Benson Schliesser Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 10:27:10 -0400 Thread-Topic: [OPSAWG] Hypervisor MIB document Thread-Index: Ac0LWriskMcuM2T3SkietJJLt4pArAAAJBwA Message-ID: <6665BC1FEA04AB47B1F75FA641C43BC0A0B8C7EF@FHDP1LUMXC7V41.us.one.verizon.com> References: <4F707305.7040701@gmail.com> <6665BC1FEA04AB47B1F75FA641C43BC0A0B8C76C@FHDP1LUMXC7V41.us.one.verizon.com> <4F7074A8.2050105@gmail.com> <6665BC1FEA04AB47B1F75FA641C43BC0A0B8C782@FHDP1LUMXC7V41.us.one.verizon.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "opsawg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Hypervisor MIB document X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:27:19 -0000 Benson, Vast majority of our existing OSS systems and tools are SNMP based. Howeve= r, YANG/NetConf model is certainly very attractive and useful. Unfortunate= ly provider OSS systems are very difficult to change, so I see SNMP and YAN= G/NetConf will co-exist for quite a while. There are practical value for b= oth. =20 =A0 Best regards, =A0 Ning So Verizon Corporate Technology (office) 972-729-7905 (Cell) 972-955-0914 =A0 -----Original Message----- From: Benson Schliesser [mailto:bschlies@cisco.com]=20 Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 9:14 AM To: So, Ning Cc: Melinda Shore; opsawg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Hypervisor MIB document Hi, Ning. As a point of clarification: Do you find value in a MIB specifically for SN= MP, or rather in a common management model? E.g. would YANG / NetConf or so= me other management model be sufficient (or preferred)? Cheers, -Benson On Mar 26, 2012, at 4:01 PM, So, Ning wrote: > The work in the area has just begun, so it is premature to list them as r= equirements of purchase immediately. As you correctly pointed out, hypervi= sor and server vendor's interest of development is an important component i= n this work as well. I would really like to see some active discussion and= consensus on this topic. =20 >=20 > =20 > Best regards, > =20 > Ning So > Verizon Corporate Technology > (office) 972-729-7905 > (Cell) 972-955-0914 > =20 >=20 >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Melinda Shore [mailto:melinda.shore@gmail.com]=20 > Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 8:53 AM > To: So, Ning > Cc: opsawg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Hypervisor MIB document >=20 > On 3/26/12 5:51 AM, So, Ning wrote: >> Yes, I do see value in the area of work as provider/operator. >=20 > Is this something that you'd include as a requirement for a purchase? >=20 > Melinda >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > OPSAWG@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg From panda@hongo.wide.ad.jp Mon Mar 26 08:04:34 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09EAA21E80CF for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 08:04:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.904 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.904 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, RELAY_IS_203=0.994] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pA3ZTXKBKG4l for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 08:04:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.hongo.wide.ad.jp (mail.hongo.wide.ad.jp [203.178.135.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7216F21E80BD for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 08:04:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhcp-236-239.elab.ic.i.u-tokyo.ac.jp (dhcp-236-239.elab.ic.i.u-tokyo.ac.jp [133.11.236.239]) by mail.hongo.wide.ad.jp (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C55AE108E7CF; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 00:04:30 +0900 (JST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: Hirochika Asai In-Reply-To: <4F707C81.8030501@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 00:04:30 +0900 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <4F707305.7040701@gmail.com> <6665BC1FEA04AB47B1F75FA641C43BC0A0B8C76C@FHDP1LUMXC7V41.us.one.verizon.com> <4F7074A8.2050105@gmail.com> <6665BC1FEA04AB47B1F75FA641C43BC0A0B8C782@FHDP1LUMXC7V41.us.one.verizon.com> <2FAFA474-1F24-40A6-9D54-9CC0A1EC5252@hongo.wide.ad.jp> <4F707C81.8030501@gmail.com> To: Melinda Shore X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257) Cc: "opsawg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Hypervisor MIB document X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:04:34 -0000 > Have you had an opportunity to review = http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schoenw-opsawg-vm-mib-00? I had no opportunity before your post, but now I'm reading this = document, and have found that some of the defined objects are same as = ours. IMPO, this draft seems very good to begin the discussion about = the hypervisor MIB. Thanks, Hirochika On Mar 26, 2012, at 11:26 PM, Melinda Shore wrote: > On 3/26/12 6:20 AM, Hirochika Asai wrote: >> I'm interested in the area of hypervisor MIB. Actually, we have also >> worked on a hypervisor MIB document and implemented an SNMP agent >> running with libvirt. Unfortunately the documentation process is >> delaying though a prototype implementation is running on our = operating >> hypervisors. We will summarize a specification of our implementation >> in a couple of weeks, and post it to this mailing list. >=20 > This is excellent - exactly the sort of feedback we're looking for. > Have you had an opportunity to review = http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schoenw-opsawg-vm-mib-00? >=20 > Thanks, >=20 > Melinda >=20 --=20 Hirochika Asai , The University of Tokyo From rstory@tislabs.com Mon Mar 26 09:51:20 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C42521E80FE for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 09:51:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Av1wqRwTMm-N for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 09:51:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from walnut.tislabs.com (walnut.tislabs.com [192.94.214.200]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2C1521E80BC for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 09:51:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nova.tislabs.com (unknown [10.66.1.77]) by walnut.tislabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A00A728B003C; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 12:51:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from tp.vb.futz.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by nova.tislabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E1FA1F8032; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 12:51:18 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 12:51:13 -0400 From: Robert Story To: Melinda Shore Message-ID: <20120326125113.69de8a87@tp.vb.futz.org> In-Reply-To: <4F707C81.8030501@gmail.com> References: <4F707305.7040701@gmail.com> <6665BC1FEA04AB47B1F75FA641C43BC0A0B8C76C@FHDP1LUMXC7V41.us.one.verizon.com> <4F7074A8.2050105@gmail.com> <6665BC1FEA04AB47B1F75FA641C43BC0A0B8C782@FHDP1LUMXC7V41.us.one.verizon.com> <2FAFA474-1F24-40A6-9D54-9CC0A1EC5252@hongo.wide.ad.jp> <4F707C81.8030501@gmail.com> Organization: SPARTA X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.8.0 (GTK+ 2.24.8; x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="Sig_/OknOn94dwkgmw.Z+an5pd8."; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Cc: "opsawg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Hypervisor MIB document X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 16:51:20 -0000 --Sig_/OknOn94dwkgmw.Z+an5pd8. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 06:26:09 -0800 Melinda wrote: MS> This is excellent - exactly the sort of feedback we're looking for. MS> Have you had an opportunity to review=20 MS> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schoenw-opsawg-vm-mib-00? I just took a quick look at it, and had a few comments.. > GuestState ::=3D TEXTUAL-CONVENTION > [...] > other(2) The state has been obtained but it does > not a known state. s/does/is/ > -- The number of CPUs and the amount of memory can be found > -- in the objects of the HOST-RESOURCES-MIB This should be clarified to indicate that it means the CPU/memory for the hypervisor host.. > vmGuestTable OBJECT-TYPE This table has information on the number of CPUs, but not information on the type of CPUs. Hypervisors can sometimes provide a different CPU to the guest than the host architecture (i.e. 32bit guest on 64bit host, or even emulation of another processor entirely). > vmStorageEntry OBJECT-TYPE > [...] > INDEX { vmGuestIndex, vmStorageIndex } > ::=3D { vmStorageTable 1 } > > VmStorageEntry ::=3D SEQUENCE { > vmStorageGuest GuestIndexOrZero, > vmStorageIndex StorageIndex, > vmStorageName SnmpAdminString > } Shouldn't vmStorageGuest and vmStorageIndex be swapped in position, since vmStorageIndex is part of the table index and vmStorageGuest is not? > vmStorageGuest OBJECT-TYPE > [...] > "Identifies the guest (virtual machine) this storage has > been allocated to. The value 0 indicates that the storage > is currently not allocated to a guest (virtual machine)." What about storage that is shared with multiple guests? > vmStorageIndex OBJECT-TYPE > [...] > "A unique value identifying a logical storage area. On > systems implementing the HOST-RESOURCES-MIB, the value > must be the same value that is used as the index into > the hrStorageTable (hrStorageIndex)." What about storage that is not in hrStorageTable? A good example would be file based storage devices. Most hypervisors have multiple network configurations available. An interface may be bridged to a hosy interface, use NAT on a host interface, or be a private network (which may or may not be shared with other VMs). I think there should be a vmNetTable. The vmIfTable should have a column indication which network, if any, it is attached to. Robert -- Senior Software Engineer SPARTA, Inc., a Parsons Company --Sig_/OknOn94dwkgmw.Z+an5pd8. Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk9wnoUACgkQ7/fVLLY1mngQzACbBI99eYaLshnzJlE+h/IkuNot IjEAn1+xTNrf4WCmI+ZcF7lUbDOx4d/f =67YX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/OknOn94dwkgmw.Z+an5pd8.-- From j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de Mon Mar 26 16:10:43 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BBD621F864E for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 16:10:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.191 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.191 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.058, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kX6QN6Q9CHRh for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 16:10:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AEEE21F8645 for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 16:10:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (demetrius1.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.46]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id D526B20C78; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 01:10:41 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius1.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eixS1zNH8uU8; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 01:10:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from elstar.local (elstar.jacobs.jacobs-university.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C9F620C4D; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 01:10:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id 97DD81E1E5A8; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 01:10:40 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 01:10:40 +0200 From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: Hirochika Asai Message-ID: <20120326231040.GA34869@elstar.local> Mail-Followup-To: Hirochika Asai , "So, Ning" , "opsawg@ietf.org" References: <4F707305.7040701@gmail.com> <6665BC1FEA04AB47B1F75FA641C43BC0A0B8C76C@FHDP1LUMXC7V41.us.one.verizon.com> <4F7074A8.2050105@gmail.com> <6665BC1FEA04AB47B1F75FA641C43BC0A0B8C782@FHDP1LUMXC7V41.us.one.verizon.com> <2FAFA474-1F24-40A6-9D54-9CC0A1EC5252@hongo.wide.ad.jp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2FAFA474-1F24-40A6-9D54-9CC0A1EC5252@hongo.wide.ad.jp> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: "opsawg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Hypervisor MIB document X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 23:10:43 -0000 On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 11:20:26PM +0900, Hirochika Asai wrote: > > I'm sorry that I cannot go to this IETF, but if the WG members are also > interested in this area, we will summarize specifications of our > implementation in a couple of weeks, and post it to this mailing list. I am surely interested in your data model. The data model in the hypervisor MIB document posted two weeks ago was extracted out of exising proprietary MIB modules and the goal was (and still is) to identify what a common core might be and at the same time to avoid duplication of stuff already covered by other MIB modules. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 From j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de Wed Mar 28 01:07:29 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB16121F8746 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 01:07:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.185 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.185 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.064, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MxUv3hhjSQiM for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 01:07:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5ABA321F86DA for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 01:07:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (demetrius2.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.47]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A11C20CC2; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 10:07:27 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius2.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2OD-VDA-_Xzq; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 10:07:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: from elstar.local (elstar.jacobs.jacobs-university.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id E09E420CB8; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 10:07:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id 1CF4E1E20C64; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 10:07:24 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 10:07:24 +0200 From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: Robert Story Message-ID: <20120328080723.GB38721@elstar.local> Mail-Followup-To: Robert Story , Melinda Shore , "opsawg@ietf.org" References: <4F707305.7040701@gmail.com> <6665BC1FEA04AB47B1F75FA641C43BC0A0B8C76C@FHDP1LUMXC7V41.us.one.verizon.com> <4F7074A8.2050105@gmail.com> <6665BC1FEA04AB47B1F75FA641C43BC0A0B8C782@FHDP1LUMXC7V41.us.one.verizon.com> <2FAFA474-1F24-40A6-9D54-9CC0A1EC5252@hongo.wide.ad.jp> <4F707C81.8030501@gmail.com> <20120326125113.69de8a87@tp.vb.futz.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120326125113.69de8a87@tp.vb.futz.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: "opsawg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Hypervisor MIB document X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 08:07:29 -0000 On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 12:51:13PM -0400, Robert Story wrote: > On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 06:26:09 -0800 Melinda wrote: > MS> This is excellent - exactly the sort of feedback we're looking for. > MS> Have you had an opportunity to review > MS> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schoenw-opsawg-vm-mib-00? > > I just took a quick look at it, and had a few comments.. > > > GuestState ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION > > [...] > > other(2) The state has been obtained but it does > > not a known state. > > s/does/is/ fixed > > -- The number of CPUs and the amount of memory can be found > > -- in the objects of the HOST-RESOURCES-MIB > > This should be clarified to indicate that it means the CPU/memory for the > hypervisor host.. This comment has already been moved into a separate section in the document discussing relationships to other MIB modules. The current text is this: The HOST-RESOURCES-MIB implemented on the physical machine provides information about the number of CPUs and the amount of memory available. Furthermore, the HOST-RESOURCES-MIB provides information about logical storage devices. The MIB module defined in this memo provides a mapping of logical storage devices to virtual machines. Further details about the storage devices (such as the size and the amount of allocated storage) is provided by the HOST-RESOURCES-MIB. Note that the number of storage types can be extended through the IANA maintained HOST-RESOURCES-TYPES MIB module. > > vmGuestTable OBJECT-TYPE > > This table has information on the number of CPUs, but not information on > the type of CPUs. Hypervisors can sometimes provide a different CPU to the > guest than the host architecture (i.e. 32bit guest on 64bit host, or even > emulation of another processor entirely). Yes, this is a good point. I added action item to add this. > > vmStorageEntry OBJECT-TYPE > > [...] > > INDEX { vmGuestIndex, vmStorageIndex } > > ::= { vmStorageTable 1 } > > > > VmStorageEntry ::= SEQUENCE { > > vmStorageGuest GuestIndexOrZero, > > vmStorageIndex StorageIndex, > > vmStorageName SnmpAdminString > > } > > Shouldn't vmStorageGuest and vmStorageIndex be swapped in position, since > vmStorageIndex is part of the table index and vmStorageGuest is not? Oops, this really should have been: INDEX { vmStorageGuest, vmStorageIndex } > > vmStorageGuest OBJECT-TYPE > > [...] > > "Identifies the guest (virtual machine) this storage has > > been allocated to. The value 0 indicates that the storage > > is currently not allocated to a guest (virtual machine)." > > What about storage that is shared with multiple guests? Is this being done in reality? If it is, we surely have to revisit the indexing. My idea was to make it easy to obtain all storage areas attached to a specific guest quickly (without having to read the whole table) - hence the double indexing. But if storage areas can be shared, then this does obviously not work. > > vmStorageIndex OBJECT-TYPE > > [...] > > "A unique value identifying a logical storage area. On > > systems implementing the HOST-RESOURCES-MIB, the value > > must be the same value that is used as the index into > > the hrStorageTable (hrStorageIndex)." > > What about storage that is not in hrStorageTable? A good example would be > file based storage devices. But could storage areas that are backed up by files not show up in the hrStorageTable? Or are you saying that tight integration of the HOST-RESOURCES-MIB implementation with this MIB can't be assumed? (Which boils down to replicating stuff defined in the HOST-RESOURCES-MIB.) > Most hypervisors have multiple network configurations available. An > interface may be bridged to a hosy interface, use NAT on a host > interface, or be a private network (which may or may not be shared with > other VMs). I think there should be a vmNetTable. The vmIfTable should have > a column indication which network, if any, it is attached to. Can you elaborate? What would be in the vmNetTable? /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 From ietf@cdl.asgaard.org Wed Mar 28 01:48:56 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8660521F88F1 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 01:48:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4LndcAkT6VBA for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 01:48:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asgaard.org (odin.asgaard.org [204.29.151.68]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76B2121F88EC for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 01:48:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by asgaard.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D82FEE66338; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 08:48:54 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at asgaard.org Received: from asgaard.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (odin.asgaard.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gn2kEMFkdi0l; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 08:48:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dhcp-6302.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-6302.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.99.2]) by asgaard.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D773CE6632B; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 08:48:52 +0000 (UTC) From: Christopher LILJENSTOLPE Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 01:48:49 -0700 Message-Id: <654B900A-C0FB-4CF2-9D2C-ECDAB22B9F39@cdl.asgaard.org> To: opsawg@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257) Cc: opsawg-chairs Subject: [OPSAWG] WG last call X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 08:48:56 -0000 Greetings, Based on the meeting today in Paris, we are starting a new WG = Last Call for the automated network configuration draft. We are going = to leave it open until 2359 UTC on 4 March. Please speak up early. Chris -- =20 =E6=9D=8E=E6=9F=AF=E7=9D=BF Check my PGP key here: https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.asc Current vCard here: https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.vcf Check my calendar availability: https://tungle.me/cdl From ietf@cdl.asgaard.org Wed Mar 28 01:53:00 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEB9021F88BB for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 01:53:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Nnx7UughLf4h for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 01:52:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asgaard.org (odin.asgaard.org [204.29.151.68]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B98BA21F893F for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 01:52:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by asgaard.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DFE4E664D8; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 08:52:59 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at asgaard.org Received: from asgaard.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (odin.asgaard.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ssdSi8H7Kq1r; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 08:52:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dhcp-6302.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-6302.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.99.2]) by asgaard.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BC0DBE664CB; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 08:52:57 +0000 (UTC) From: Christopher LILJENSTOLPE Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 01:52:54 -0700 Message-Id: <4F9931EB-E20A-4A7F-A670-47B587397C69@cdl.asgaard.org> To: opsawg@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257) Cc: opsawg-chairs Subject: [OPSAWG] adoption of Draft-kuarsingh-lsn-deployment as WG item X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 08:53:01 -0000 Greetings, This is to start a poll in the working group to see if we want = to accept Draft-kuarsingh-lsn-deployment as a working group item. We = will leave this poll open until 2359 UTC on 4 April. Please speak early = and often. Chris -- =20 =E6=9D=8E=E6=9F=AF=E7=9D=BF Check my PGP key here: https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.asc Current vCard here: https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.vcf Check my calendar availability: https://tungle.me/cdl From ietf@cdl.asgaard.org Wed Mar 28 01:54:42 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DEF521F895E for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 01:54:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rgAweNvqp1gw for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 01:54:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asgaard.org (odin.asgaard.org [204.29.151.68]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 751C521F8951 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 01:54:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by asgaard.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46FF5E66584; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 08:54:41 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at asgaard.org Received: from asgaard.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (odin.asgaard.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r6T-5ctn1LOD; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 08:54:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dhcp-6302.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-6302.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.99.2]) by asgaard.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 775D8E66577; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 08:54:39 +0000 (UTC) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 From: Christopher LILJENSTOLPE In-Reply-To: <654B900A-C0FB-4CF2-9D2C-ECDAB22B9F39@cdl.asgaard.org> Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 01:54:37 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <654B900A-C0FB-4CF2-9D2C-ECDAB22B9F39@cdl.asgaard.org> To: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257) Cc: opsawg-chairs Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] WG last call X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 08:54:42 -0000 Correction, the deadline is 2359 UTC on 4 APRIL, 2012. Chris On 28Mar2012, at 01.48, Christopher LILJENSTOLPE wrote: > Greetings, >=20 > Based on the meeting today in Paris, we are starting a new WG = Last Call for the automated network configuration draft. We are going = to leave it open until 2359 UTC on 4 March. Please speak up early. >=20 > Chris >=20 > -- =20 > =E6=9D=8E=E6=9F=AF=E7=9D=BF > Check my PGP key here: https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.asc > Current vCard here: https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.vcf > Check my calendar availability: https://tungle.me/cdl >=20 > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > OPSAWG@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg -- =20 =E6=9D=8E=E6=9F=AF=E7=9D=BF Check my PGP key here: https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.asc Current vCard here: https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.vcf Check my calendar availability: https://tungle.me/cdl From adrian@olddog.co.uk Wed Mar 28 01:55:17 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C64321F8976 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 01:55:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.557 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.557 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.042, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p+Gvia3Crk3V for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 01:55:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (asmtp5.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.176]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C05AB21F88FF for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 01:55:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q2S8tC8M009169; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 09:55:12 +0100 Received: from 950129200 (dhcp-11f1.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.17.241]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q2S8tBKn009144 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 28 Mar 2012 09:55:11 +0100 From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "'Christopher LILJENSTOLPE'" , References: <654B900A-C0FB-4CF2-9D2C-ECDAB22B9F39@cdl.asgaard.org> In-Reply-To: <654B900A-C0FB-4CF2-9D2C-ECDAB22B9F39@cdl.asgaard.org> Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 09:55:12 +0100 Message-ID: <097901cd0cc0$7ceeeea0$76cccbe0$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQJ7LEs4e1HlMTTXiomRIvTSnw5dopUjKEhw Content-Language: en-gb Cc: 'opsawg-chairs' Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] WG last call X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 08:55:17 -0000 Yup, speak *really* early to get your comments in before 4 March :-) > -----Original Message----- > From: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:opsawg-bounces@ietf.org] On = Behalf > Of Christopher LILJENSTOLPE > Sent: 28 March 2012 09:49 > To: opsawg@ietf.org > Cc: opsawg-chairs > Subject: [OPSAWG] WG last call >=20 > Greetings, >=20 > Based on the meeting today in Paris, we are starting a new WG Last = Call > for the automated network configuration draft. We are going to leave = it open > until 2359 UTC on 4 March. Please speak up early. >=20 > Chris >=20 > -- > =E6=9D=8E=E6=9F=AF=E7=9D=BF > Check my PGP key here: https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.asc > Current vCard here: https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.vcf > Check my calendar availability: https://tungle.me/cdl >=20 > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > OPSAWG@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg From ietf@cdl.asgaard.org Wed Mar 28 02:01:33 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BFC721F89C3; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 02:01:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4vD9u0OPzD43; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 02:01:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asgaard.org (odin.asgaard.org [204.29.151.68]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61DE621F89C2; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 02:01:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by asgaard.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F780E6684B; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 09:01:29 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at asgaard.org Received: from asgaard.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (odin.asgaard.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id A3hncnyBYUtl; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 09:01:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dhcp-6302.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-6302.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.99.2]) by asgaard.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 60A94E6683F; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 09:01:27 +0000 (UTC) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 From: Christopher LILJENSTOLPE In-Reply-To: <7F298ACC76CC154F832B6D02852D169F079F3DC8@XMB-RCD-101.cisco.com> Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 02:01:24 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <9AD0D6B7-6587-4864-B427-571DC97C44FD@cdl.asgaard.org> References: <7F298ACC76CC154F832B6D02852D169F079F3DC8@XMB-RCD-101.cisco.com> To: "Aamer Akhter (aakhter)" , opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257) Cc: Tools-discuss@ietf.org, opsawg-chairs Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] hosting of opsawg at news.gmane.org X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 09:01:33 -0000 Consider it done. Please remember that the ietf mailing list archive is = the definitive one. Chris On 28Mar2012, at 00.48, Aamer Akhter (aakhter) wrote: >=20 >=20 > There are a large number of IETF mailing lists hosted at gmane. I have > found it a much easier interface to interact with rather than the > official archive at > (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsawg/current/maillist.html). >=20 >=20 >=20 > 1) Would it be possible to import the existing archive into > gmane.org? > This requires the 'owner' of mailing list to make the request.=20 > http://gmane.org/import.php >=20 >=20 >=20 > 2) Would it be possible for gmane.org to subscribe to the mailing > list such as to archive the forward discussions in a nicer interface? > http://gmane.org/subscribe.php >=20 >=20 >=20 > Thanks for any consideration, >=20 > aa >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 -- =20 =E6=9D=8E=E6=9F=AF=E7=9D=BF Check my PGP key here: https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.asc Current vCard here: https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.vcf Check my calendar availability: https://tungle.me/cdl From david.black@emc.com Wed Mar 28 03:22:49 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC20D21F891D for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 03:22:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -109.773 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.773 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.826, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uhvyt0rlP1+6 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 03:22:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mexforward.lss.emc.com (mexforward.lss.emc.com [128.222.32.20]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B871821F891C for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 03:22:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hop04-l1d11-si02.isus.emc.com (HOP04-L1D11-SI02.isus.emc.com [10.254.111.55]) by mexforward.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id q2SAMlNA014289 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 28 Mar 2012 06:22:48 -0400 Received: from mailhub.lss.emc.com (mailhub.lss.emc.com [10.254.221.253]) by hop04-l1d11-si02.isus.emc.com (RSA Interceptor); Wed, 28 Mar 2012 06:22:26 -0400 Received: from mxhub24.corp.emc.com (mxhub24.corp.emc.com [128.222.70.136]) by mailhub.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id q2SAMPVc014351; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 06:22:26 -0400 Received: from mx14a.corp.emc.com ([169.254.1.70]) by mxhub24.corp.emc.com ([128.222.70.136]) with mapi; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 06:22:25 -0400 From: To: Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 06:22:23 -0400 Thread-Topic: [OPSAWG] Hypervisor MIB document Thread-Index: Ac0MufcavV81pQmMQNu/gOwr96v5mAAEWmEQ Message-ID: <7C4DFCE962635144B8FAE8CA11D0BF1E05B2DFAC5B@MX14A.corp.emc.com> References: <4F707305.7040701@gmail.com> <6665BC1FEA04AB47B1F75FA641C43BC0A0B8C76C@FHDP1LUMXC7V41.us.one.verizon.com> <4F7074A8.2050105@gmail.com> <6665BC1FEA04AB47B1F75FA641C43BC0A0B8C782@FHDP1LUMXC7V41.us.one.verizon.com> <2FAFA474-1F24-40A6-9D54-9CC0A1EC5252@hongo.wide.ad.jp> <4F707C81.8030501@gmail.com> <20120326125113.69de8a87@tp.vb.futz.org> <20120328080723.GB38721@elstar.local> In-Reply-To: <20120328080723.GB38721@elstar.local> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-EMM-MHVC: 1 Cc: opsawg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Hypervisor MIB document X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 10:22:49 -0000 Juergen, Regarding storage sharing: > > What about storage that is shared with multiple guests? >=20 > Is this being done in reality? Yes - it's rather common. Here are two important examples: 1) When certain HA cluster software is deployed within multiple VMs, the qu= orum device/volume (used to maintain cluster membership, including revising= cluster membership after a failure) is shared among the VMs that run the H= A cluster software. For at least VMware vSphere (ESX & ESXi hypervisors), it's very common to p= ut multiple virtual machines (including virtual disk images) on a single st= orage resource seen by the hypervisor (NFS filesystem, SCSI-based SAN stora= ge device) - for SCSI-based SAN storage, this is done via VMFS. In additio= n, hypervisor clusters typically share the storage resources across the clu= ster in order to avoid copying storage when a VM is live-migrated across se= rvers. Thanks, --David (storm [STORage Maintenance] WG co-chair) > -----Original Message----- > From: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:opsawg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf = Of Juergen Schoenwaelder > Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 4:07 AM > To: Robert Story > Cc: opsawg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Hypervisor MIB document >=20 > On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 12:51:13PM -0400, Robert Story wrote: > > On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 06:26:09 -0800 Melinda wrote: > > MS> This is excellent - exactly the sort of feedback we're looking for. > > MS> Have you had an opportunity to review > > MS> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schoenw-opsawg-vm-mib-00? > > > > I just took a quick look at it, and had a few comments.. > > > > > GuestState ::=3D TEXTUAL-CONVENTION > > > [...] > > > other(2) The state has been obtained but it does > > > not a known state. > > > > s/does/is/ >=20 > fixed >=20 > > > -- The number of CPUs and the amount of memory can be found > > > -- in the objects of the HOST-RESOURCES-MIB > > > > This should be clarified to indicate that it means the CPU/memory for t= he > > hypervisor host.. >=20 > This comment has already been moved into a separate section in the > document discussing relationships to other MIB modules. The current > text is this: >=20 > > The HOST-RESOURCES-MIB implemented on the physical machine > provides information about the number of CPUs and the amount > of memory available. Furthermore, the HOST-RESOURCES-MIB > provides information about logical storage devices. > > > The MIB module defined in this memo provides a mapping of > logical storage devices to virtual machines. Further details > about the storage devices (such as the size and the amount > of allocated storage) is provided by the HOST-RESOURCES-MIB. > Note that the number of storage types can be extended > through the IANA maintained HOST-RESOURCES-TYPES MIB module. > >=20 > > > vmGuestTable OBJECT-TYPE > > > > This table has information on the number of CPUs, but not information o= n > > the type of CPUs. Hypervisors can sometimes provide a different CPU to = the > > guest than the host architecture (i.e. 32bit guest on 64bit host, or ev= en > > emulation of another processor entirely). >=20 > Yes, this is a good point. I added action item to add this. >=20 > > > vmStorageEntry OBJECT-TYPE > > > [...] > > > INDEX { vmGuestIndex, vmStorageIndex } > > > ::=3D { vmStorageTable 1 } > > > > > > VmStorageEntry ::=3D SEQUENCE { > > > vmStorageGuest GuestIndexOrZero, > > > vmStorageIndex StorageIndex, > > > vmStorageName SnmpAdminString > > > } > > > > Shouldn't vmStorageGuest and vmStorageIndex be swapped in position, sin= ce > > vmStorageIndex is part of the table index and vmStorageGuest is not? >=20 > Oops, this really should have been: >=20 > INDEX { vmStorageGuest, vmStorageIndex } >=20 > > > vmStorageGuest OBJECT-TYPE > > > [...] > > > "Identifies the guest (virtual machine) this storage has > > > been allocated to. The value 0 indicates that the storage > > > is currently not allocated to a guest (virtual machine)." > > > > What about storage that is shared with multiple guests? >=20 > Is this being done in reality? If it is, we surely have to revisit the > indexing. My idea was to make it easy to obtain all storage areas > attached to a specific guest quickly (without having to read the whole > table) - hence the double indexing. But if storage areas can be > shared, then this does obviously not work. >=20 > > > vmStorageIndex OBJECT-TYPE > > > [...] > > > "A unique value identifying a logical storage area. On > > > systems implementing the HOST-RESOURCES-MIB, the value > > > must be the same value that is used as the index into > > > the hrStorageTable (hrStorageIndex)." > > > > What about storage that is not in hrStorageTable? A good example would = be > > file based storage devices. >=20 > But could storage areas that are backed up by files not show up in the > hrStorageTable? Or are you saying that tight integration of the > HOST-RESOURCES-MIB implementation with this MIB can't be assumed? > (Which boils down to replicating stuff defined in the > HOST-RESOURCES-MIB.) >=20 > > Most hypervisors have multiple network configurations available. An > > interface may be bridged to a hosy interface, use NAT on a host > > interface, or be a private network (which may or may not be shared with > > other VMs). I think there should be a vmNetTable. The vmIfTable should = have > > a column indication which network, if any, it is attached to. >=20 > Can you elaborate? What would be in the vmNetTable? >=20 > /js >=20 > -- > Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > OPSAWG@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg From j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de Wed Mar 28 04:13:44 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50C0721F89AA for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 04:13:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.186 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.186 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.063, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VDqjj4vCSXBu for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 04:13:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CB8B21F89A9 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 04:13:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (demetrius1.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.46]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7630A20C75; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 13:13:42 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius1.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k2UtuIO6gwbV; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 13:13:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from elstar.local (elstar.jacobs.jacobs-university.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 180AB20C2E; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 13:13:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id 282721E21329; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 13:13:42 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 13:13:42 +0200 From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: david.black@emc.com Message-ID: <20120328111342.GA39896@elstar.local> Mail-Followup-To: david.black@emc.com, opsawg@ietf.org References: <4F707305.7040701@gmail.com> <6665BC1FEA04AB47B1F75FA641C43BC0A0B8C76C@FHDP1LUMXC7V41.us.one.verizon.com> <4F7074A8.2050105@gmail.com> <6665BC1FEA04AB47B1F75FA641C43BC0A0B8C782@FHDP1LUMXC7V41.us.one.verizon.com> <2FAFA474-1F24-40A6-9D54-9CC0A1EC5252@hongo.wide.ad.jp> <4F707C81.8030501@gmail.com> <20120326125113.69de8a87@tp.vb.futz.org> <20120328080723.GB38721@elstar.local> <7C4DFCE962635144B8FAE8CA11D0BF1E05B2DFAC5B@MX14A.corp.emc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7C4DFCE962635144B8FAE8CA11D0BF1E05B2DFAC5B@MX14A.corp.emc.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: opsawg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Hypervisor MIB document X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 11:13:44 -0000 On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 06:22:23AM -0400, david.black@emc.com wrote: > Juergen, > > Regarding storage sharing: > > > > What about storage that is shared with multiple guests? > > > > Is this being done in reality? > > Yes - it's rather common. Here are two important examples: > > 1) When certain HA cluster software is deployed within multiple VMs, the quorum device/volume (used to maintain cluster membership, including revising cluster membership after a failure) is shared among the VMs that run the HA cluster software. > > For at least VMware vSphere (ESX & ESXi hypervisors), it's very common to put multiple virtual machines (including virtual disk images) on a single storage resource seen by the hypervisor (NFS filesystem, SCSI-based SAN storage device) - for SCSI-based SAN storage, this is done via VMFS. In addition, hypervisor clusters typically share the storage resources across the cluster in order to avoid copying storage when a VM is live-migrated across servers. > David, this is useful information. While some of the sharing seems to be happening below the 'image' given to virtual machine as a file system (and thus might not be relevant from the hypervisor perspective), it seems assuming there is no sharing in the indexing structure is likely a mistake. So it seems reasonable to change the current indexing. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 From rstory@tislabs.com Wed Mar 28 05:01:55 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC04A21E8179 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 05:01:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aDFPcKg34FrL for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 05:01:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from walnut.tislabs.com (walnut.tislabs.com [192.94.214.200]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED80621E816F for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 05:01:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nova.tislabs.com (unknown [10.66.1.77]) by walnut.tislabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F54228B003C; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 08:01:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from tp.vb.futz.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by nova.tislabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3977E1F8032; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 08:01:52 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 08:01:51 -0400 From: Robert Story To: Message-ID: <20120328080151.2918fabe@tp.vb.futz.org> In-Reply-To: <7C4DFCE962635144B8FAE8CA11D0BF1E05B2DFAC5B@MX14A.corp.emc.com> References: <4F707305.7040701@gmail.com> <6665BC1FEA04AB47B1F75FA641C43BC0A0B8C76C@FHDP1LUMXC7V41.us.one.verizon.com> <4F7074A8.2050105@gmail.com> <6665BC1FEA04AB47B1F75FA641C43BC0A0B8C782@FHDP1LUMXC7V41.us.one.verizon.com> <2FAFA474-1F24-40A6-9D54-9CC0A1EC5252@hongo.wide.ad.jp> <4F707C81.8030501@gmail.com> <20120326125113.69de8a87@tp.vb.futz.org> <20120328080723.GB38721@elstar.local> <7C4DFCE962635144B8FAE8CA11D0BF1E05B2DFAC5B@MX14A.corp.emc.com> Organization: SPARTA X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.8.0 (GTK+ 2.24.8; x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="Sig_//IF5+gBUxsWK+oEkK+ISn+D"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Cc: opsawg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Hypervisor MIB document X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 12:01:56 -0000 --Sig_//IF5+gBUxsWK+oEkK+ISn+D Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 06:22:23 -0400 david.black@emc.com wrote: DBC> SCSI-based SAN storage device) - for SCSI-based SAN storage, this is DBC> done via VMFS. In addition, hypervisor clusters typically share the DBC> storage resources across the cluster in order to avoid copying storage DBC> when a VM is live-migrated across servers. Which reminds me of something else I meant to mention.. We probably need to add 'migrating' to the list of machine states.. Robert -- Senior Software Engineer SPARTA, Inc., a Parsons Company --Sig_//IF5+gBUxsWK+oEkK+ISn+D Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk9y/a8ACgkQ7/fVLLY1mnh3pgCfd6my0hl2Ci5IMF7PZCSqB9rq M34AniDRwjdPjTht5kHrPOpQ+j5XNsJq =185n -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_//IF5+gBUxsWK+oEkK+ISn+D-- From j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de Wed Mar 28 05:46:52 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B552C21E8203 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 05:46:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.186 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.186 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.063, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j-ggSEgzYdnw for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 05:46:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE83221E81FD for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 05:46:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (demetrius4.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.49]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 238E220C4E; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 14:46:51 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius4.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id X6ASJ-m2Rh1i; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 14:46:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: from elstar.local (elstar.jacobs.jacobs-university.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id B845D20C48; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 14:46:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id EB1101E21B64; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 14:46:50 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 14:46:50 +0200 From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: Robert Story Message-ID: <20120328124650.GA41560@elstar.local> Mail-Followup-To: Robert Story , opsawg@ietf.org References: <4F707305.7040701@gmail.com> <6665BC1FEA04AB47B1F75FA641C43BC0A0B8C76C@FHDP1LUMXC7V41.us.one.verizon.com> <4F7074A8.2050105@gmail.com> <6665BC1FEA04AB47B1F75FA641C43BC0A0B8C782@FHDP1LUMXC7V41.us.one.verizon.com> <2FAFA474-1F24-40A6-9D54-9CC0A1EC5252@hongo.wide.ad.jp> <4F707C81.8030501@gmail.com> <20120326125113.69de8a87@tp.vb.futz.org> <20120328080723.GB38721@elstar.local> <7C4DFCE962635144B8FAE8CA11D0BF1E05B2DFAC5B@MX14A.corp.emc.com> <20120328080151.2918fabe@tp.vb.futz.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120328080151.2918fabe@tp.vb.futz.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: opsawg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Hypervisor MIB document X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 12:46:52 -0000 On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 08:01:51AM -0400, Robert Story wrote: > Which reminds me of something else I meant to mention.. We probably need to > add 'migrating' to the list of machine states.. Yes, I agree. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 From rstory@tislabs.com Wed Mar 28 05:50:46 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8D6F21E81E6 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 05:50:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 44R8qxFU68R5 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 05:50:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from walnut.tislabs.com (walnut.tislabs.com [192.94.214.200]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4380821F8865 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 05:50:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nova.tislabs.com (unknown [10.66.1.77]) by walnut.tislabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E58DB28B003C; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 08:50:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from tp.vb.futz.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by nova.tislabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F4F71F8032; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 08:50:44 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 08:50:40 -0400 From: Robert Story To: Juergen Schoenwaelder Message-ID: <20120328085040.1534d299@tp.vb.futz.org> In-Reply-To: <20120328080723.GB38721@elstar.local> References: <4F707305.7040701@gmail.com> <6665BC1FEA04AB47B1F75FA641C43BC0A0B8C76C@FHDP1LUMXC7V41.us.one.verizon.com> <4F7074A8.2050105@gmail.com> <6665BC1FEA04AB47B1F75FA641C43BC0A0B8C782@FHDP1LUMXC7V41.us.one.verizon.com> <2FAFA474-1F24-40A6-9D54-9CC0A1EC5252@hongo.wide.ad.jp> <4F707C81.8030501@gmail.com> <20120326125113.69de8a87@tp.vb.futz.org> <20120328080723.GB38721@elstar.local> Organization: SPARTA X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.8.0 (GTK+ 2.24.8; x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="Sig_/KnY0nxOVyiZSL_iMQQWQhR5"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Cc: "opsawg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Hypervisor MIB document X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 12:50:46 -0000 --Sig_/KnY0nxOVyiZSL_iMQQWQhR5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 10:07:24 +0200 Juergen wrote: JS> > > vmStorageIndex OBJECT-TYPE JS> > > [...] JS> > > "A unique value identifying a logical storage area. On JS> > > systems implementing the HOST-RESOURCES-MIB, the value JS> > > must be the same value that is used as the index into JS> > > the hrStorageTable (hrStorageIndex)." JS> >=20 JS> > What about storage that is not in hrStorageTable? A good example JS> > would be file based storage devices. JS>=20 JS> But could storage areas that are backed up by files not show up in the JS> hrStorageTable? Or are you saying that tight integration of the JS> HOST-RESOURCES-MIB implementation with this MIB can't be assumed? JS> (Which boils down to replicating stuff defined in the JS> HOST-RESOURCES-MIB.) I'm not familiar with high-end/bare metal hypervisors, but Parallels, VMWare player/workstation, KVM and Xen all support various file-based storage devices (e.g. qcow, qcow2, vmdk, cow). These do not appear as filesystems on the host os, so they most likely would not appear in hrStorage. (It's possible, but unlikely, that an HR implementation could be hypervisor aware and parse Vm configurations to extract paths for these files.) JS> > Most hypervisors have multiple network configurations available. An JS> > interface may be bridged to a hosy interface, use NAT on a host JS> > interface, or be a private network (which may or may not be shared JS> > with other VMs). I think there should be a vmNetTable. The vmIfTable JS> > should have a column indication which network, if any, it is attached JS> > to. JS>=20 JS> Can you elaborate? What would be in the vmNetTable? vmNetIndex - index of network vmNetName - name vmNetDesc (optional) vmNetPhysIfIndex - ifIndex of physical interface (or 0 if none) vmNetifType - vmNetNAT(0), vmNetPublicBridge(1), vmNetPrivateBridge(2) Usually these virtual network offer DHCP addresses to guests, so it might be useful to have that configuration information available too, either in additional columns or in another table. The vmIfTable would then look something like vmIfIndex - index of virtual interface; no relation to ifIndex vmGuestIndex - index of guest to which interface is assigned vmNetIndex - index of network to which interface is assigned vmIfState - vmIfConnected(0), vmIfDisconnected(0) vmIfPhysAddr I don't think that guest or network index should be part of the index for this table, as either one can be changed at any time. It may be useful to have a few convenience tables: * vmGuestIfTable { vmGuestIndex, vmGuestIfIndex } vmNetIndex * vmNetIfTable { vmNetIndex, vmIfIndex} vmGuestIndex Robert -- Senior Software Engineer SPARTA, Inc., a Parsons Company --Sig_/KnY0nxOVyiZSL_iMQQWQhR5 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk9zCSQACgkQ7/fVLLY1mngIdwCeM+zW7FGOwFzlbkADyR2oEC7W TLgAoIBc5t+UyAClKKDM3ufk3Ukc8Guk =gxWk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/KnY0nxOVyiZSL_iMQQWQhR5-- From tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com Thu Mar 29 03:48:34 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B465221F848F for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 03:48:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nCXcS4u2V1Yk for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 03:48:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-bk0-f44.google.com (mail-bk0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26D8C21F88AD for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 03:48:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by bkuw5 with SMTP id w5so2000780bku.31 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 03:48:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=nEnQtPLjfHNKtxYJb5QPACILQu9CCfYlu6T6TGMK/Ik=; b=AWCOjuQhcYmCAF8K3yl3sjyxeoFhp4XRrBiBiNxXrOhfeK0Poq24E8iOhBIlk8wpEO mobv78Bqfwmy3YJGPZy7Kxxapi7xdj6bA55WUOnTXo1KvqZtyxOelebsNTwVfg4wtPQ5 dDhOdFeRRsj0PUTyWWlklkSR6VRbDw8lN1GsEY+JUUD8J+jJw/wSudYalc9foLoMwYG+ EHai9732y/iqbi2TxhfUBkJf1nTt9AXlyHEB3fVq9RRWYibgOez7xzYfbGyXx2X2tV/E KpzlILLi7IlQkXEn4Dy+Y+9GuWRxhIzfKffOV3AuqHEsbEiUUGwN7hxfNI8AFKaAse0v wllQ== Received: by 10.204.154.202 with SMTP id p10mr13155478bkw.79.1333018111884; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 03:48:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:df8:0:16:226:c7ff:fed1:8eda? ([2001:df8:0:16:226:c7ff:fed1:8eda]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id t17sm12786565bke.6.2012.03.29.03.48.29 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 29 Mar 2012 03:48:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4F743DFB.8030504@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 12:48:27 +0200 From: Tom Taylor User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120310 Thunderbird/11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: opsawg@ietf.org References: <654B900A-C0FB-4CF2-9D2C-ECDAB22B9F39@cdl.asgaard.org> In-Reply-To: <654B900A-C0FB-4CF2-9D2C-ECDAB22B9F39@cdl.asgaard.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] WG last call X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 10:48:34 -0000 On 12-03-28 10:48 AM, Christopher LILJENSTOLPE wrote: > Greetings, > > Based on the meeting today in Paris, we are starting a new WG Last Call for the automated network configuration draft. We are going to leave it open until 2359 UTC on 4 March. Please speak up early. > > Chris > > -- > 李柯睿 > Check my PGP key here: https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.asc > Current vCard here: https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.vcf > Check my calendar availability: https://tungle.me/cdl > > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > OPSAWG@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg As a somewhat defunct co-author, I support moving the draft forward. Tom Taylor From C.Grundemann@cablelabs.com Fri Mar 30 13:21:03 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BC3721F8675 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 13:21:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.956 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.956 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.995, BAYES_40=-0.185, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nsxShkP0BcUL for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 13:21:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ondar.cablelabs.com (ondar.cablelabs.com [192.160.73.61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C155721F861D for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 13:21:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kyzyl.cablelabs.com (kyzyl [10.253.0.7]) by ondar.cablelabs.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q2UKL026020354; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 14:21:01 -0600 Received: from srvxchg.cablelabs.com (10.5.0.15) by kyzyl.cablelabs.com (F-Secure/fsigk_smtp/407/kyzyl.cablelabs.com); Fri, 30 Mar 2012 14:21:00 -0600 (MDT) X-Virus-Status: clean(F-Secure/fsigk_smtp/407/kyzyl.cablelabs.com) Received: from srvxchg.cablelabs.com ([10.5.0.15]) by srvxchg ([10.5.0.15]) with mapi; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 14:21:01 -0600 From: Chris Grundemann To: Christopher LILJENSTOLPE , "opsawg@ietf.org" Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 14:20:58 -0600 Thread-Topic: [OPSAWG] adoption of Draft-kuarsingh-lsn-deployment as WG item Thread-Index: Ac0Osp+VxbTefBlsQZKlLSfsLbPNUw== Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4F9931EB-E20A-4A7F-A670-47B587397C69@cdl.asgaard.org> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.14.0.111121 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Approved: ondar Cc: "opsawg-chairs@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] adoption of Draft-kuarsingh-lsn-deployment as WG item X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 20:21:03 -0000 Chris, OPSAWG, This document represents solid practical work which should definitely continue in the WG. We'll be much better off providing as much real world experience and guidance as possible to those SPs forced to deploy NAT444 CGN. Cheers, ~Chris On 3/28/12 2:52 AM, "Christopher LILJENSTOLPE" wrote: >Greetings, > > This is to start a poll in the working group to see if we want to accept >Draft-kuarsingh-lsn-deployment as a working group item. We will leave >this poll open until 2359 UTC on 4 April. Please speak early and often. > > Chris > >-- =20 >=1B$BM{[IbO=1B(B >Check my PGP key here: https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.asc >Current vCard here: https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.vcf >Check my calendar availability: https://tungle.me/cdl > >_______________________________________________ >OPSAWG mailing list >OPSAWG@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg From wesley.george@twcable.com Fri Mar 30 16:45:41 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5779D21F86A8 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 16:45:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.054 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.054 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.409, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FxNJGpiUELlp for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 16:45:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cdpipgw01.twcable.com (cdpipgw01.twcable.com [165.237.59.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 814C821F85FC for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 16:45:40 -0700 (PDT) X-SENDER-IP: 10.136.163.12 X-SENDER-REPUTATION: None X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,347,1330923600"; d="scan'208";a="361635153" Received: from unknown (HELO PRVPEXHUB03.corp.twcable.com) ([10.136.163.12]) by cdpipgw01.twcable.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-MD5; 30 Mar 2012 19:45:05 -0400 Received: from PRVPEXVS03.corp.twcable.com ([10.136.163.27]) by PRVPEXHUB03.corp.twcable.com ([10.136.163.12]) with mapi; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 19:45:14 -0400 From: "George, Wes" To: Christopher LILJENSTOLPE , "opsawg@ietf.org" Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 19:45:13 -0400 Thread-Topic: [OPSAWG] WG last call (on opsawg-automated-network-configuration-03) Thread-Index: Ac0MwG0Gl3euwNmCRPewJycNl152iwCDIFXw Message-ID: References: <654B900A-C0FB-4CF2-9D2C-ECDAB22B9F39@cdl.asgaard.org> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: opsawg-chairs Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] WG last call (on opsawg-automated-network-configuration-03) X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 23:45:41 -0000 Rm9yIHRob3NlIHdobyBkaWQgbm90IGF0dGVuZCB0aGUgbWVldGluZywgcGxlYXNlIHByb3ZpZGUg YSBzdW1tYXJ5IG9mIHRoZSBkaXNjdXNzaW9uIG9uIHRoZSBJUFIgY2xhaW0gZmlsZWQgYWdhaW5z dCB0aGlzIGRyYWZ0LiBTcGVjaWZpY2FsbHksIHdlcmUgYW55IGNoYW5nZXMgaW5kaWNhdGVkIHRv IGF2b2lkIHRoZSBtZXRob2RzIGRpc2Nsb3NlZCBpbiB0aGUgSVBSLCBvciB3YXMgaXQgZGV0ZXJt aW5lZCB0byBiZSBpcnJlbGV2YW50IHNpbmNlIHRoaXMgZHJhZnQgZG9lcyBub3QgZGVhbCBpbiBz b2x1dGlvbnM/IFRoZXJlIHdhcyBuZXZlciBhIHN1ZmZpY2llbnQgYW5zd2VyIG9uLWxpc3QgYXMg dG8gd2hhdCBwYXJ0cyBvZiB0aGUgZHJhZnQgcmVzdWx0ZWQgaW4gYSB0cmlnZ2VyIGZvciBJUFIg ZGlzY2xvc3VyZSBiZXR3ZWVuIDAxIGFuZCAwMi8wMyBpbiB0aGUgZmlyc3QgcGxhY2UsIGFuZCB0 aGUgZGlmZiBvZiAwMyBkb2VzIG5vdCBzaG93IGFueSB0ZXh0IHJlbW92ZWQgKHRvIGFkZHJlc3Mg SVBSKS4NCg0KQXMgdG8gc3BlY2lmaWMgY29tbWVudHMsIGFzIEkgd2FzIG9uZSBvZiB0aGUgcmV2 aWV3ZXJzIGJlZm9yZSwgYWxsIG9mIG15IGNvbW1lbnRzIGhhdmUgYmVlbiBhZGRyZXNzZWQgaW4g dGhlIGxhdGVzdCByZXZpc2lvbiBhbmQgb25jZSB0aGUgSVBSIG1hdHRlciBpcyBhZGRyZXNzZWQs IEkgdGhpbmsgdGhhdCBpdCdzIHJlYWR5IHRvIG1vdmUgb24uDQoNClRoYW5rcywNCg0KV2VzIEdl b3JnZQ0KDQoNCg0KPiAtLS0tLU9yaWdpbmFsIE1lc3NhZ2UtLS0tLQ0KPiBGcm9tOiBvcHNhd2ct Ym91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZyBbbWFpbHRvOm9wc2F3Zy1ib3VuY2VzQGlldGYub3JnXSBPbiBCZWhh bGYgT2YNCj4gQ2hyaXN0b3BoZXIgTElMSkVOU1RPTFBFDQo+IFNlbnQ6IFdlZG5lc2RheSwgTWFy Y2ggMjgsIDIwMTIgNDo1NSBBTQ0KPiBUbzogb3BzYXdnQGlldGYub3JnDQo+IENjOiBvcHNhd2ct Y2hhaXJzDQo+IFN1YmplY3Q6IFJlOiBbT1BTQVdHXSBXRyBsYXN0IGNhbGwNCj4NCj4gQ29ycmVj dGlvbiwgdGhlIGRlYWRsaW5lIGlzIDIzNTkgVVRDIG9uIDQgQVBSSUwsIDIwMTIuDQo+DQo+ICAg ICAgIENocmlzDQo+DQo+IE9uIDI4TWFyMjAxMiwgYXQgMDEuNDgsIENocmlzdG9waGVyIExJTEpF TlNUT0xQRSB3cm90ZToNCj4NCj4gPiBHcmVldGluZ3MsDQo+ID4NCj4gPiAgICAgQmFzZWQgb24g dGhlIG1lZXRpbmcgdG9kYXkgaW4gUGFyaXMsIHdlIGFyZSBzdGFydGluZyBhIG5ldyBXRyBMYXN0 IENhbGwNCj4gZm9yIHRoZSBhdXRvbWF0ZWQgbmV0d29yayBjb25maWd1cmF0aW9uIGRyYWZ0LiAg V2UgYXJlIGdvaW5nIHRvIGxlYXZlIGl0IG9wZW4NCj4gdW50aWwgMjM1OSBVVEMgb24gNCBNYXJj aC4gIFBsZWFzZSBzcGVhayB1cCBlYXJseS4NCj4gPg0KPiA+ICAgICBDaHJpcw0KPiA+DQo+ID4g LS0NCj4gPiDmnY7mn6/nnb8NCj4gPiBDaGVjayBteSBQR1Aga2V5IGhlcmU6IGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3 LmFzZ2FhcmQub3JnL35jZGwvY2RsLmFzYw0KPiA+IEN1cnJlbnQgdkNhcmQgaGVyZTogaHR0cHM6 Ly93d3cuYXNnYWFyZC5vcmcvfmNkbC9jZGwudmNmDQo+ID4gQ2hlY2sgbXkgY2FsZW5kYXIgYXZh aWxhYmlsaXR5OiBodHRwczovL3R1bmdsZS5tZS9jZGwNCj4gPg0KPiA+IF9fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fDQo+ID4gT1BTQVdHIG1haWxpbmcgbGlz dA0KPiA+IE9QU0FXR0BpZXRmLm9yZw0KPiA+IGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL21haWxtYW4v bGlzdGluZm8vb3BzYXdnDQo+DQo+IC0tDQo+IOadjuafr+edvw0KPiBDaGVjayBteSBQR1Aga2V5 IGhlcmU6IGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmFzZ2FhcmQub3JnL35jZGwvY2RsLmFzYw0KPiBDdXJyZW50IHZD YXJkIGhlcmU6IGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmFzZ2FhcmQub3JnL35jZGwvY2RsLnZjZg0KPiBDaGVjayBt eSBjYWxlbmRhciBhdmFpbGFiaWxpdHk6IGh0dHBzOi8vdHVuZ2xlLm1lL2NkbA0KPg0KPiBfX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXw0KPiBPUFNBV0cgbWFp bGluZyBsaXN0DQo+IE9QU0FXR0BpZXRmLm9yZw0KPiBodHRwczovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tYWls bWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL29wc2F3Zw0KDQpUaGlzIEUtbWFpbCBhbmQgYW55IG9mIGl0cyBhdHRhY2ht ZW50cyBtYXkgY29udGFpbiBUaW1lIFdhcm5lciBDYWJsZSBwcm9wcmlldGFyeSBpbmZvcm1hdGlv biwgd2hpY2ggaXMgcHJpdmlsZWdlZCwgY29uZmlkZW50aWFsLCBvciBzdWJqZWN0IHRvIGNvcHly aWdodCBiZWxvbmdpbmcgdG8gVGltZSBXYXJuZXIgQ2FibGUuIFRoaXMgRS1tYWlsIGlzIGludGVu ZGVkIHNvbGVseSBmb3IgdGhlIHVzZSBvZiB0aGUgaW5kaXZpZHVhbCBvciBlbnRpdHkgdG8gd2hp Y2ggaXQgaXMgYWRkcmVzc2VkLiBJZiB5b3UgYXJlIG5vdCB0aGUgaW50ZW5kZWQgcmVjaXBpZW50 IG9mIHRoaXMgRS1tYWlsLCB5b3UgYXJlIGhlcmVieSBub3RpZmllZCB0aGF0IGFueSBkaXNzZW1p bmF0aW9uLCBkaXN0cmlidXRpb24sIGNvcHlpbmcsIG9yIGFjdGlvbiB0YWtlbiBpbiByZWxhdGlv biB0byB0aGUgY29udGVudHMgb2YgYW5kIGF0dGFjaG1lbnRzIHRvIHRoaXMgRS1tYWlsIGlzIHN0 cmljdGx5IHByb2hpYml0ZWQgYW5kIG1heSBiZSB1bmxhd2Z1bC4gSWYgeW91IGhhdmUgcmVjZWl2 ZWQgdGhpcyBFLW1haWwgaW4gZXJyb3IsIHBsZWFzZSBub3RpZnkgdGhlIHNlbmRlciBpbW1lZGlh dGVseSBhbmQgcGVybWFuZW50bHkgZGVsZXRlIHRoZSBvcmlnaW5hbCBhbmQgYW55IGNvcHkgb2Yg dGhpcyBFLW1haWwgYW5kIGFueSBwcmludG91dC4NCg== From sob@harvard.edu Sat Mar 31 05:41:31 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1ADCB21F8678 for ; Sat, 31 Mar 2012 05:41:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.232 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.232 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.367, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PtlnUrRYITPi for ; Sat, 31 Mar 2012 05:41:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ackroyd.harvard.edu (ackroyd.harvard.edu [128.103.208.29]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9093F21F8607 for ; Sat, 31 Mar 2012 05:41:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exchange.university.harvard.edu (unknown [10.35.2.151]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ackroyd.harvard.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CE21E9103; Sat, 31 Mar 2012 08:41:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ENTWHUBT0000006.university.harvard.edu (192.168.236.26) by ENTWEDGE0000000.university.harvard.edu (10.35.2.151) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Sat, 31 Mar 2012 08:41:26 -0400 Received: from ENTWEXMB0000004.university.harvard.edu ([169.254.3.128]) by ENTWHUBT0000006.university.harvard.edu ([::1]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Sat, 31 Mar 2012 08:41:28 -0400 From: "Bradner, Scott" To: "George, Wes" Thread-Topic: [OPSAWG] WG last call (on opsawg-automated-network-configuration-03) Thread-Index: AQHNDzuXDy9I6QULk0CcbqHDi5jMIw== Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 12:41:28 +0000 Message-ID: <5BB0AB46-C9E3-49D5-9755-53FDC90A88DF@harvard.edu> References: <654B900A-C0FB-4CF2-9D2C-ECDAB22B9F39@cdl.asgaard.org> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [136.248.127.162] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "opsawg@ietf.org" , opsawg-chairs Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] WG last call (on opsawg-automated-network-configuration-03) X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 12:41:31 -0000 YSBuZXcgSVBSIGRpc2Nsb3N1cmUgd2FzIGZpbGVkIHdoaWNoIEkgcmVhZCBhdCB0aGUgc2Vzc2lv biAgKGl0IGhhcyBub3Qgc2hvd24gdXAgaW4gdGhlIElQUiBkaXNjbG9zdXJlIGxpc3QgeWV0IGJ1 dCBzaG91bGQgc29vbikNCg0KPiAiVGhpcyBkb2N1bWVudCBkb2VzIG5vdCBkZWZpbmUgYSBzdGFu ZGFyZCBkaXJlY3RseTsgbm90d2l0aHN0YW5kaW5nIHRoYXQsIGlmIGFueSBjbGFpbSBvZiBhbnkg cGF0ZW50IG93bmVkIG9yIGNvbnRyb2xsZWQgYnkgSHVhd2VpIG9yIGl0cyBBZmZpbGlhdGVzIGlz IGVzc2VudGlhbCBvbiBhIHRlY2huaWNhbCBncm91bmQgdG8gYSBzdGFuZGFyZCBkZXJpdmVkIGZy b20gdGhpcyBkb2N1bWVudCBhbmQgYWRvcHRlZCBieSB0aGUgSUVURiwgSHVhd2VpIG9uIGJlaGFs ZiBvZiBpdHNlbGYgYW5kIGl0cyBBZmZpbGlhdGVzIGhlcmVieSBjb3ZlbmFudCBub3QgdG8gYXNz ZXJ0IGFueSBzdWNoIGNsYWltIGFnYWluc3QgYW55IHBhcnR5IGZvciBtYWtpbmcsIHVzaW5nLCBz ZWxsaW5nLCBvZmZlcmluZyBmb3Igc2FsZSBvciBpbXBvcnRpbmcgYSBwcm9kdWN0IHRoYXQgaW1w bGVtZW50cyB0aGUgY29ycmVzcG9uZGluZyBwYXJ0IG9mIHRoZSBzdGFuZGFyZC4gSG93ZXZlciwg bm90aGluZyBoZXJlaW4gc2hhbGwgcHJlY2x1ZGUgSHVhd2VpIG9yIGFueSBvZiBpdHMgQWZmaWxp YXRlcyBmcm9tIGFzc2VydGluZyB0aGUgYWJvdmUtbWVudGlvbmVkIHBhdGVudCBjbGFpbXMgYWdh aW5zdCBhbnkgcGFydHkgdGhhdCBhc3NlcnRzIGRpcmVjdGx5IG9yIGluZGlyZWN0bHkgYSBwYXRl bnQgaXQgb3ducyBvciBjb250cm9scyBhZ2FpbnN0IEh1YXdlaSBhbmQvb3IgaXRzIEFmZmlsaWF0 ZXMsIG9yIGFnYWluc3QgYW55IHByb2R1Y3RzIG9mIEh1YXdlaSBvciBpdHMgQWZmaWxpYXRlcyBl aXRoZXIgYWxvbmUgb3IgaW4gY29tYmluYXRpb24gd2l0aCBvdGhlciBwcm9kdWN0cy4NCj4gRlJB TkQgcm95YWx0eS1iZWFyaW5nIGxpY2Vuc2VzIHdpbGwgYmUgYXZhaWxhYmxlIHRvIGFueW9uZSB3 aG8gcHJlZmVycyB0aGF0IG9wdGlvbi4iDQoNCnRoZSBuZXcgZGlzY2xvc3VyZSBub3RlcyB0aGF0 IHRoZSBJRCBpcyBub3QgYSBzdGFuZGFyZCBidXQgc2VydmVzIGFzIGEgaGVhZHMgdXAgdGhhdCB0 ZWNobm9sb2d5IG1lZXRpbmcgdGhlIA0KcHJvYmxlbXMgYXMgc3RhdGVkIGluIHRoZSBJRCBjb3Vs ZCBpbmZyaW5nZSBvbiB0aGUgY2xhaW1lZCBJUFIgLSB0aGlzIGlzIHBvdGVudGlhbGx5IHVzZWZ1 bCBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiBmb3IgYSBXRyANCmRldmVsb3BpbmcgdGVjaG5vbG9neSB0byBtZWV0IHRo ZSBwcm9ibGVtcy4NCg0KVGhlIGRpc2Nsb3N1cmUgaW5jbHVkZXMgdGhlIGNvbW1vbi1pbi10aGUt aWV0ZiBzdGF0ZW1lbnQgdGhhdCB0aGUgSVBSIGhvbGRlciB3aWxsIG5vdCBhc3NlcnQgYW55IElQ UiBjbGFpbSANCmFnYWluc3Qgc29tZW9uZSBpbXBsZW1lbnRpbmcgYSBJRVRGIHN0YW5kYXJkIHRo YXQgbWlnaHQgYmUgZGV2ZWxvcGVkIHRvIG1lZXQgdGhlc2UgcHJvYmxlbXMgYnV0IHRoYXQNCmFs bCBiZXRzIGFyZSBvZmYgZm9yIHNvbWVvbmUgd2hvIHN1ZXMgdGhlIElQUiBob2xkZXIuICANCg0K U2NvdHQNCg0KDQpPbiBNYXIgMzAsIDIwMTIsIGF0IDc6NDUgUE0sIEdlb3JnZSwgV2VzIHdyb3Rl Og0KDQo+IEZvciB0aG9zZSB3aG8gZGlkIG5vdCBhdHRlbmQgdGhlIG1lZXRpbmcsIHBsZWFzZSBw cm92aWRlIGEgc3VtbWFyeSBvZiB0aGUgZGlzY3Vzc2lvbiBvbiB0aGUgSVBSIGNsYWltIGZpbGVk IGFnYWluc3QgdGhpcyBkcmFmdC4gU3BlY2lmaWNhbGx5LCB3ZXJlIGFueSBjaGFuZ2VzIGluZGlj YXRlZCB0byBhdm9pZCB0aGUgbWV0aG9kcyBkaXNjbG9zZWQgaW4gdGhlIElQUiwgb3Igd2FzIGl0 IGRldGVybWluZWQgdG8gYmUgaXJyZWxldmFudCBzaW5jZSB0aGlzIGRyYWZ0IGRvZXMgbm90IGRl YWwgaW4gc29sdXRpb25zPyBUaGVyZSB3YXMgbmV2ZXIgYSBzdWZmaWNpZW50IGFuc3dlciBvbi1s aXN0IGFzIHRvIHdoYXQgcGFydHMgb2YgdGhlIGRyYWZ0IHJlc3VsdGVkIGluIGEgdHJpZ2dlciBm b3IgSVBSIGRpc2Nsb3N1cmUgYmV0d2VlbiAwMSBhbmQgMDIvMDMgaW4gdGhlIGZpcnN0IHBsYWNl LCBhbmQgdGhlIGRpZmYgb2YgMDMgZG9lcyBub3Qgc2hvdyBhbnkgdGV4dCByZW1vdmVkICh0byBh ZGRyZXNzIElQUikuDQo+IA0KPiBBcyB0byBzcGVjaWZpYyBjb21tZW50cywgYXMgSSB3YXMgb25l IG9mIHRoZSByZXZpZXdlcnMgYmVmb3JlLCBhbGwgb2YgbXkgY29tbWVudHMgaGF2ZSBiZWVuIGFk ZHJlc3NlZCBpbiB0aGUgbGF0ZXN0IHJldmlzaW9uIGFuZCBvbmNlIHRoZSBJUFIgbWF0dGVyIGlz IGFkZHJlc3NlZCwgSSB0aGluayB0aGF0IGl0J3MgcmVhZHkgdG8gbW92ZSBvbi4NCj4gDQo+IFRo YW5rcywNCj4gDQo+IFdlcyBHZW9yZ2UNCj4gDQo+IA0KPiANCj4+IC0tLS0tT3JpZ2luYWwgTWVz c2FnZS0tLS0tDQo+PiBGcm9tOiBvcHNhd2ctYm91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZyBbbWFpbHRvOm9wc2F3 Zy1ib3VuY2VzQGlldGYub3JnXSBPbiBCZWhhbGYgT2YNCj4+IENocmlzdG9waGVyIExJTEpFTlNU T0xQRQ0KPj4gU2VudDogV2VkbmVzZGF5LCBNYXJjaCAyOCwgMjAxMiA0OjU1IEFNDQo+PiBUbzog b3BzYXdnQGlldGYub3JnDQo+PiBDYzogb3BzYXdnLWNoYWlycw0KPj4gU3ViamVjdDogUmU6IFtP UFNBV0ddIFdHIGxhc3QgY2FsbA0KPj4gDQo+PiBDb3JyZWN0aW9uLCB0aGUgZGVhZGxpbmUgaXMg MjM1OSBVVEMgb24gNCBBUFJJTCwgMjAxMi4NCj4+IA0KPj4gICAgICBDaHJpcw0KPj4gDQo+PiBP biAyOE1hcjIwMTIsIGF0IDAxLjQ4LCBDaHJpc3RvcGhlciBMSUxKRU5TVE9MUEUgd3JvdGU6DQo+ PiANCj4+PiBHcmVldGluZ3MsDQo+Pj4gDQo+Pj4gICAgQmFzZWQgb24gdGhlIG1lZXRpbmcgdG9k YXkgaW4gUGFyaXMsIHdlIGFyZSBzdGFydGluZyBhIG5ldyBXRyBMYXN0IENhbGwNCj4+IGZvciB0 aGUgYXV0b21hdGVkIG5ldHdvcmsgY29uZmlndXJhdGlvbiBkcmFmdC4gIFdlIGFyZSBnb2luZyB0 byBsZWF2ZSBpdCBvcGVuDQo+PiB1bnRpbCAyMzU5IFVUQyBvbiA0IE1hcmNoLiAgUGxlYXNlIHNw ZWFrIHVwIGVhcmx5Lg0KPj4+IA0KPj4+ICAgIENocmlzDQo+Pj4gDQo+Pj4gLS0NCj4+PiDmnY7m n6/nnb8NCj4+PiBDaGVjayBteSBQR1Aga2V5IGhlcmU6IGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmFzZ2FhcmQub3Jn L35jZGwvY2RsLmFzYw0KPj4+IEN1cnJlbnQgdkNhcmQgaGVyZTogaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYXNnYWFy ZC5vcmcvfmNkbC9jZGwudmNmDQo+Pj4gQ2hlY2sgbXkgY2FsZW5kYXIgYXZhaWxhYmlsaXR5OiBo dHRwczovL3R1bmdsZS5tZS9jZGwNCj4+PiANCj4+PiBfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXw0KPj4+IE9QU0FXRyBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QNCj4+PiBPUFNB V0dAaWV0Zi5vcmcNCj4+PiBodHRwczovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL29w c2F3Zw0KPj4gDQo+PiAtLQ0KPj4g5p2O5p+v552/DQo+PiBDaGVjayBteSBQR1Aga2V5IGhlcmU6 IGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmFzZ2FhcmQub3JnL35jZGwvY2RsLmFzYw0KPj4gQ3VycmVudCB2Q2FyZCBo ZXJlOiBodHRwczovL3d3dy5hc2dhYXJkLm9yZy9+Y2RsL2NkbC52Y2YNCj4+IENoZWNrIG15IGNh bGVuZGFyIGF2YWlsYWJpbGl0eTogaHR0cHM6Ly90dW5nbGUubWUvY2RsDQo+PiANCj4+IF9fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fDQo+PiBPUFNBV0cgbWFp bGluZyBsaXN0DQo+PiBPUFNBV0dAaWV0Zi5vcmcNCj4+IGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL21h aWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8vb3BzYXdnDQo+IA0KPiBUaGlzIEUtbWFpbCBhbmQgYW55IG9mIGl0cyBh dHRhY2htZW50cyBtYXkgY29udGFpbiBUaW1lIFdhcm5lciBDYWJsZSBwcm9wcmlldGFyeSBpbmZv cm1hdGlvbiwgd2hpY2ggaXMgcHJpdmlsZWdlZCwgY29uZmlkZW50aWFsLCBvciBzdWJqZWN0IHRv IGNvcHlyaWdodCBiZWxvbmdpbmcgdG8gVGltZSBXYXJuZXIgQ2FibGUuIFRoaXMgRS1tYWlsIGlz IGludGVuZGVkIHNvbGVseSBmb3IgdGhlIHVzZSBvZiB0aGUgaW5kaXZpZHVhbCBvciBlbnRpdHkg dG8gd2hpY2ggaXQgaXMgYWRkcmVzc2VkLiBJZiB5b3UgYXJlIG5vdCB0aGUgaW50ZW5kZWQgcmVj aXBpZW50IG9mIHRoaXMgRS1tYWlsLCB5b3UgYXJlIGhlcmVieSBub3RpZmllZCB0aGF0IGFueSBk aXNzZW1pbmF0aW9uLCBkaXN0cmlidXRpb24sIGNvcHlpbmcsIG9yIGFjdGlvbiB0YWtlbiBpbiBy ZWxhdGlvbiB0byB0aGUgY29udGVudHMgb2YgYW5kIGF0dGFjaG1lbnRzIHRvIHRoaXMgRS1tYWls IGlzIHN0cmljdGx5IHByb2hpYml0ZWQgYW5kIG1heSBiZSB1bmxhd2Z1bC4gSWYgeW91IGhhdmUg cmVjZWl2ZWQgdGhpcyBFLW1haWwgaW4gZXJyb3IsIHBsZWFzZSBub3RpZnkgdGhlIHNlbmRlciBp bW1lZGlhdGVseSBhbmQgcGVybWFuZW50bHkgZGVsZXRlIHRoZSBvcmlnaW5hbCBhbmQgYW55IGNv cHkgb2YgdGhpcyBFLW1haWwgYW5kIGFueSBwcmludG91dC4NCj4gX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCj4gT1BTQVdHIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdA0KPiBP UFNBV0dAaWV0Zi5vcmcNCj4gaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby9v cHNhd2cNCg0K