Subject: Re: [spring] New Draft draft-gandhi-spring-udp-pm

From: "Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 12:36:30 +0000

Thanks Mach for the comments. We will add following TLV in the next revision of the draft.

3.1.2.1.  Block Number TLV

   The Loss Measurement using Alternate-Marking method defined in
   [RFC8321] requires to identify the Block Number (colour) of the
   traffic counters carried by the probe query and response messages.
   Probe query and response messages specified in [RFC6374] for Loss
   Measurement do not define any means to carry the Block Number.

   [RFC6374] defines probe query and response messages that can include
   one or more optional TLVs.  New TLV Type (value TBA8) is defined in
   this document to carry Block Number (32-bit) for the traffic counters
   in the probe query and response messages for loss measurement.  The
   format of the Block Number TLV is shown in Figure 11:

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |   Type TBA7   |    Length     |      Reserved                 |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                       Block Number                            |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                    Figure 11: Block Number TLV

   The Block Number TLV is optional.  The PM querier node SHOULD only
   insert one Block Number TLV in the probe query message and the
   responder node in the probe response message SHOULD return the first
   Block Number TLV from the probe query messages and ignore other Block
   Number TLVs if present.  In probe query and response messages, the
   counters MUST belong to the same Block Number.

Thanks,
Rakesh

From: Mach Chen <[email-masked]>
Date: Monday, July 23, 2018 at 11:31 PM
To: "=SMTP:rgandhi@cisco. com" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, spring <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: New Draft draft-gandhi-spring-udp-pm

Hi Authors,

The draft-gandhi-spring-udp-pm-01 defines a new C flag as following:

3.1.2.1.  Loss Measurement Flags

   An LM message carries Data Format Flags (DFlags) as defined in
   [RFC6374].  New Flag is defined in this document for Color (C) in the
   DFlags field as follows.

                              +-+-+-+-+
                              |X|B|C|0|
                              +-+-+-+-+

                          Data Format Flags

   The Flag C indicates the Color of the counters in the LM probe
   message [RFC6374] when using Alternate-Marking method defined in
   [RFC8321].
-------------

As defined in Section 4.2 of [RFC8321], could you consider to define more than one flag or a TLV to carry Block number instead?

Best regards,
Mach

From: ippm [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 9:57 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ippm] New Draft draft-gandhi-spring-udp-pm

Hi WG,

We like to introduce following new draft that was presented to SPRING WG yesterday.

This draft defines IP/UDP path for sending probe query messages for delay and loss measurement that is agnostics to data plane (SR-MPLS/SRv6/IP) and does not require to bootstrap PM session.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gandhi-spring-udp-pm/

You may find presentation in the following package (it is the second draft).

https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/102/materials/slides-102-spring-13-performance-measurement-in-sr-networks-00

We welcome your comments and suggestions.

Thanks,
Rakesh (On behalf of authors and contributors)

---

From: Rakesh Gandhi <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 09:04:25 -0400

Hi Greg,

Thanks for your comments. We can add following summary in the draft for
STAMP. Please advise if the text is correct.

  The Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP)
   [I-D.ippm-stamp] extends TWAMP by alleviating control channel
   signaling to setup test channel and supports IEEE 1588 timestamp
   format.  The STAMP defines mechanisms such as using the TCP port of
   control channel for test channel, using configuration data model to
   provision test channels and using responder node in reflector mode
   for two-way measurement.  The TWAMP Light from broadband forum
   [BBF.TR-390] provides simplified mechanisms for active performance
   measurement in Customer Edge IP networks.

Thanks,
Rakesh

On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 3:30 PM Greg Mirsky <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hi Rakesh,
> thank you for bringing this draft up for discussion. There was not enough
> time to ask questions at the SPRING WG meeting and this is a very good
> opportunity.
> I understand that you've proposed to use RFC 6374 to encode PM operations
> and measurements.. Also, you've referenced work on OWAMP and TWAMP. But I
> don't find any reference to STAMP
> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-01>in the draft. How
> would you position STAMP, its optional extensions
> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mirsky-ippm-stamp-option-tlv-01>, and YANG
> model <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-yang-01> in
> comparison with your new draft?
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 6:57 AM, Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) <
> rgandhi=[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>> Hi WG,
>>
>>
>>
>> This draft defines IP/UDP path for sending probe query messages for delay
>> and loss measurement that is agnostics to data plane (SR-MPLS/SRv6/IP) and
>> does not require to bootstrap PM session.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ippm mailing list
>> [email-masked]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
>

---

From: Mach Chen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2018 01:09:28 +0000

Hi Rakesh,

It looks good to me.

Best regards,
Mach

From: Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2018 8:37 PM
To: Mach Chen <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]; spring <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: New Draft draft-gandhi-spring-udp-pm

    0                   1                   2                   3

Thanks,
Rakesh

From: Mach Chen <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Date: Monday, July 23, 2018 at 11:31 PM
To: "=SMTP:rgandhi@cisco. com" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Cc: "[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>, spring <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Subject: RE: New Draft draft-gandhi-spring-udp-pm

Hi Authors,

                              +-+-+-+-+
                              |X|B|C|0|
                              +-+-+-+-+

                          Data Format Flags

Best regards,
Mach

From: ippm [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 9:57 PM
To: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
Subject: [ippm] New Draft draft-gandhi-spring-udp-pm

Hi WG,

Thanks,