LIME OAM Model Design Team (DT) Discussion Qin WU (Design Team member) Gregory Mirsky (Design Team member) Tom Taylor (Design Team member) Deepak Kumar.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
1 Metro Ethernet Forum OAM An Update Matt Squire Hatteras Networks.
Advertisements

ECMP for 802.1Qxx Proposal for PAR and 5 Criteria Version 2 16 people from ECMP ad-hoc committee.
Nortel Confidential Information 1 VPLS OAM (draft-mohan-l2vpn-vpls-oam) L2VPN WG, IETF-71 (Philadelphia) Mar 13, 2008 Dinesh Mohan (Nortel) Ali Sajassi.
Italo Busi (Editor) Huub van Helvoort (Editor) Jia He (Editor)
MPLS-TP BFD for CC-CV proactive and RDI functionalities
1 Introducing the Specifications of the Metro Ethernet Forum MEF 17 Service OAM Framework and Requirements February 2008.
BFD MIB Extensions for MPLS and MPLS-TP Networks draft-vkst-bfd-mpls-mib-01 Sam Aldrin Tom Nadeau Venkatesan Mahalingam Mukund Mani Kannan KV Sampath.
BIER Ping IETF 92 draft-kumarzheng-bier-ping-00
Problem Statement and Architecture for Information Exchange Between Interconnected Traffic Engineered Networks draft-farrel-interconnected-te-info-exchange-03.txt.
MPLS-TP OAM Analysis draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-analysis-00.txt
Introducing the Specifications of the MEF
MIF API draft-ietf-mif-api-extension-05 Dapeng Liu.
© 2007 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco Public 1 Version 4.0 Communicating over the Network Network Fundamentals – Chapter 2.
Draft-koike-mpls-tp-temporal- hitless-psm th November Beijing Yoshinori Koike / NTT.
1 Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) presented by: chitralekha tamrakar (B.S.E.) divya krit tamrakar (B.S.E.) Rashmi shrivastava(B.S.E.) prakriti.
MPLS-TP - 79th IETF1 MPLS-TP Control Plane Framework draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-cp- framework-03.txt Contributors: Loa Andersson Lou Berger Luyuan Fang Nabil.
© 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Cisco Public Presentation_ID 1 Greg Mirsky, Ericsson Vero Zheng, Huawei Sam Aldrin, Yanfeng Zhang, Huawei.
1 Goals and objectives (1 slide only) Project(s): MIB Ad hoc, involves EMS-NMS (MEF 7.1) Purpose of the contribution: Provide the rationale behind starting.
Abierman-nanog-30may03 1 XML Router Configs BOF Operator Involvement Andy Bierman
Draft-koike-mpls-tp-temporal- hitless-psm th July Maastricht Yoshinori Koike / NTT.
A method to monitor active MPLS label Mapping draft-cauchie-opsawg-monitoring-mpls-label-mapping-00 Gregory Cauchie
EAP Extensions for EAP Re- authentication Protocol (ERP) draft-wu-hokey-rfc5296bis-01 Yang Shi Qin Wu Zhen Cao
1 draft-sajassi-mohan-l2vpn-vpls-fm-00.txt draft-mohan-sajassi-l2vpn-vpls-pm-00.txt Dinesh Mohan (Nortel) IETF-59, Seoul March.
Multiple Interfaces (MIF) WG IETF 79, Beijing, China Margaret Wasserman Hui Deng
MPLS-TP INTER-OP: WHAT, WHY, AND HOW? General Objectives for MPLS-TP Inter-Op Test Program at UNH-IOL.
Application of PWE3 to MPLS Transport Networks
12/8/2015 draft-blb-mpls-tp-framework-01.txt A framework for MPLS in Transport networks draft-blb-mpls-tp-framework-01.txt Stewart Bryant (Cisco), Matthew.
Draft-ietf-fecframe-config-signaling-02 1 FEC framework Configuration Signaling draft-ietf-fecframe-config-signaling-02.txt IETF 76 Rajiv Asati.
TEMPLATE DESIGN © SUPA – Simplified Use of Policy Abstractions Policy-driven Service Management Date: Wednesday, July.
62 nd IETF – CAPWAP Working Group1 CAPWAP Objectives Saravanan Govindan March 2005.
MPLS-TP Loopback Draft draft-boutros-mpls-tp-loopback-02.txt Sami Boutros and a Cast of Thousands.
1 MPLS Architectural Considerations for a Transport Profile ITU-T - IETF Joint Working Team Dave Ward, Malcolm Betts, ed. April 16, 2008.
MPLS-TP OAM Analysis draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-analysis-03.txt Nurit Sprecher / Nokia Siemens Networks Tom Nadeau / BT Huub van Helvoort / Huawei Yaacov.
Slide 1 2/22/2016 Policy-Based Management With SNMP SNMPCONF Working Group - Interim Meeting May 2000 Jon Saperia.
Slide title In CAPITALS 50 pt Slide subtitle 32 pt GMPLS RSVP-TE extensions for OAM Configuration IETF-81 Quebec.
Netconf Schema Query Mark Scott IETF 70 Vancouver December 2007
Indication of Client Fault in MPLS-TP OAM draft-ietf-mpls-tp-csf-01 IETF 80 th, March 27-April 1, 2011 Jia He Han Li Elisa Bellagamba.
TRILL OAM use of CFM 1 Tissa Senevirathne (Cisco) new-senevirathne-trill-oam- liaison-0114-v011/17/14.
The Application of the Path Computation Element Architecture to the Determination of a Sequence of Domains in MPLS & GMPLS draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk-00.txt.
Page 1 IETF DRINKS Working Group Data Model and Protocol Requirements for DRINKS IETF 72 - Thursday July Tom Creighton -
Automated provisioning of Ethernet OAM in CarrierEthernet networks: the case of GRNET Leonidas Poulopoulos Michalis Mamalis Stauros.
IETF85 A framework for Point-to-Multipoint MPLS-TP draft-hmk-mpls-tp-p2mp-oam-framework-01.txt Yoshinori Koike Masatoshi Namiki Takafumi Hamano.
MPLS-TP OAM Analysis Nurit Sprecher / Nokia Siemens Networks Tom Nadeau / BT Huub van Helvoort / Huawei Yaacov Weingarten / Nokia Siemens Networks.
Connectionless OAM yang model Deepak Kumar Qin WU Zitao Wang Reshad Rahman Srihari Raghavan 1IETF96, Berlin, Germany.
Applicability Statement for Layer 1 Virtual Private Networks (L1VPNs) Basic Mode draft-takeda-l1vpn-applicability-basic-mode-00.txt Deborah Brungard (AT&T)
On-demand Continuity Check (CC) and Connectivity Verification(CV) for OverlayNetworks draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-demand-cc-cv-01 Greg Mirsky Erik Nordmark Nagendra.
Connectionless OAM yang model
Layer Independent OAM Management in the Multi-Layer Environment LIME
Tal Mizrahi Marvell IETF Meeting 78, July 2010
IETF 94 Yokohama BFD YANG Model and LIME
LIME Base YANG Model Work Update draft-tissa-lime-yang-oam-model draft-wang-lime-yang-pm Deepak Kumar Qin WU IETF93 Prage,Czech.
Overlay OAM Design Team Report
YANG Data Model for FDM Abstract
FRD Examples November 28, 2017 L. Ong.
ITU-T Study Group 15 Update to IETF CCAMP
LIME CL Model Updated
Alignment of Part 4B with ISAE 3000
Packet loss Measurement Model draft-bhaprasud-ippm-pm-03
BFD Directed Return Path draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed-07
Deepak Kumar Zitao Wang Qin Wu Reshad Rahman Srihari Raghavan
LIME CO Model Update draft-ietf-lime-yang-oam-model-07
PW Control Word Stitching
William Lupton | | 04-Nov-2018
Use of p2mp BFD in PIM-SM (over shared-media segment) draft-mirsky-pim-bfd-p2mp-use-case Greg Mirsky Ji Xiaoli
OAM for Deterministic Networks with IP Data Plane draft-mirsky-detnet-ip-oam Greg Mirsky Mach Chen IETF-105 July 2019, Montreal.
PW Control Word Stitching
János Farkas, Balázs Varga, Rodney Cummings, Jiang Yuanlong
Task 62 Scope – Config / Operational State
Inter-AS OAM for SR Networks IETF 105, Montreal
Presentation transcript:

LIME OAM Model Design Team (DT) Discussion Qin WU (Design Team member) Gregory Mirsky (Design Team member) Tom Taylor (Design Team member) Deepak Kumar (Design Team member) Carlos Pignataro (Design Team member) Geoff Huston (Design Team member) Ronald Bonica (Design Team member) Santosh P K (Design Team member) Adrian Farrel

Contents Scope and objectives for the Design Team Discussion points from Design Team (#1,#2#3) meeting Summary of Design Team List Discussions Findings, Conclusions and Next Steps

The key questions and objectives for the Design Team (DT) Thanks to Ron for helping seed the initial discussion: 1.To what degree does the choice of an OAM model influence LIME work? 2.Can the LIME's output be made "model agnostic"? We are NOT defining new OAM protocols Our intention is to work on an OAM data model that is relevant to many, or all (?), IETF technologies Our focus has been analyzing the suitability of IETF (YANG) technologies to describe OAM information

#1 DT Meeting Key Discussion Points What model can be used as basis for LIME OAM model? What mode will the LIME model need to support? Connection Oriented? Connection less? What are common elements for each OAM technology? How does LIME model simplify operation cost?

#2 DT Meeting Cancelled. But. Greg prepared the initial version of the OAM Model Comparison. – This is discussed in the next few slides Comparison analysis between IP OAM, IP/MPLS OAM, MPLS-TP OAM, TRILL OAM Candidate models Terminology Common OAM functions

#3 DT Meeting Understanding on “IP OAM is under-defined” was discussed – MD/MD-Level/MEP/MIP is implicitly supported by IP OAM MD is corresponding to administration domain MEP/MIP is corresponding to IP address of the test point MD-level is corresponding to IP layer or layer 3. Both Connection less and connection oriented feature need to be supported – Greg claimed he was not aware of IP OAM model to be defined. – But draft-tissa-lime-yang-oam-model-03 provide model that is generic enough to support IP OAM. Greg proposes two options to address this issue – Greg is willing to review and comment on the update of draft-tissa-lime-yang- oam-model-03 Make sure the LIME model proposed in /draft-tissa-lime-yang-oam-model-03 support IP OAM feature. – Or define IP OAM model first and separate it from LIME OAM model if the current model cannot support IP OAM (Ask WG chairs’ opinion on this).

Comparison analysis between IP OAM, IP/MPLS OAM, MPLS-TP OAM, TRILL OAM

Candidate models as basis IEEE CFM model CFM is originally designed for Ethernet technology Ethernet technologies support both connection oriented and connection less ITU-T Y.1731 MEF-38 Service OAM Fault Management YANG Modules Technical Specification Use IEEE CFM model as basis MEF-39 Service OAM Performance Monitoring YANG Module Technical Specification Use IEEE CFM model as basis MPLS-TP OAM model in the section 4 of RFC6371 Use ITU-T Y.1731 model as basis

IEEE CFM model vs ITU-T Y.1731 IEEE CFM defines a complete fault model that include fault domains, Test point, Layering etc. ITU-T Y.1731 defines both Fault management mechanisms and Performance Management mechanisms

Common OAM functions See RFC7276 Section5.2 for Common OAM function for IP OAM, IP/MPLS OAM, MPLS-TP OAM, TRILL OAM, BFD

Common model elements for each OAM technology Fault Domain, Test Point, Layering Model OAM technology type, addressing, and RPC for various common OAM function Other common elements include – Connection oriented vs. connection less – Proactive vs. on demand – Point to point vs. point to multi-point

How does LIME model reduce operation complexity? NETCONF Support network wide transactions management – Network and service configuration instead of device configuration Using NECONF, adding transaction to the devices, Management complexity are greatly reduced

How does the LIME model reduce operation complexity? Operation and management of the network is limited when OAM is required across multiple technologies – An end to end path requires multiple network segments, with each segment support the different OAM Technology – Ensure that the OAM messaging will not leak outside domain boundaries within a layer

End to End Network Troubleshooting Intention of the LIME model – Network troubleshooting within each layer, or in each network segment, may be run separately and the test results can be represented and reported in the same way to the management system(e.g., OSS/NMS) – The results in each network segment can be stitched together to form end to end network view of troubleshooting results Additional requirements – A facility to run independent troubleshooting in each layer separately – Support for management and control systems to have automated and consistent OAM test results

Summary of All Design Team Discussions OAM models analysis table (initially provided by Greg) worked on by all – IP OAM, IP/MPLS OAM, MPLS-TP OAM, and TRILL OAM are compared MEP, MIP, CC, CV, loss measurement, delay measurement, loss of continuity ARE common COMPONENTS. – OAM requirements are listed, most of requirements are data plane OAM requirements How these requirements are applied to management plane are not discussed yet. – LIME model is a superset of the functions in any specific known layer. Commonality between IP/IP-based OAM models and CFM/Y.1731/MPLS-TP/TRILL OAM are discussed – Most agreed that Testing point, fault domain, technology type, addressing, ECMP, etc are common elements – Using MD/MA/MP in the IP and IP/MPLS was discussed The benefit is to provide consistent reporting and representation, Especially in the end to end path diagnose case. MD/MP is not OAM specific information but Management specific information for operator filling this implicit MEP/MIP specific information has no changes to IP OAM protocol Is LIME tasked to define new OAM protocol? Get guidance from chairs There were strong agreement that LIME is not targeted to define new OAM protocol Clarification that filling implicit MEP/MIP in the model has no change to OAM protocol. P2P,P2MP, etc support in the base model or technology specific model extension – Tom Taylor proposed to add technology independent topo type in the base model – Deepak and Qin support this and Deepak provide an example to suppor technology independent topo in the base model.

Conclusions Ongoing discussion of common objectives, moving away from coded terminology and developing the common OAM model – Objects (and corresponding terminology) should be identified, agreed and defined – We have OAM technologies that share sufficient commonality to start with DT Agreement – Whether model A is selected or model B is selected, common features they shared are test point, fault domain, addressing, technology type, rpc, etc. – LIME model is manage plane model and orthogonal to any data plane OAM model LIME model can be understood by all the OAM layer or can be parsed by each OAM technology LIME model extension for OAM technology A can only be understood by OAM technology A – Commonality between MPLS OAM, MPLS-TP OAM, TRILL OAM are agreed.

Conclusion DT Disagreement – Debate on commonality between IP OAM and other OAM technologies single hop OAM support – Greg believed current model only support single hop OAM – BFD model and LIME model are orthogonal to each other. LIME model is used to provide consistent representation and reporting across layer while BFD model is not. Proactive mode support – Greg believed Ping/Traceroute only support on demand, proactive mode is supported by LIME model(e.g., BFD Async, TWAMP in IP)? – LIME model can support both on demand mode and proactive mode, TRILL PM WG draft provides an example. OWAMP/TWAMP control protocol as CC/CV – Greg disagreed OWAMP/TWAMP control protocol played as CC/CV – OWAMP/TWAMP uses control protocol to setup session or return results – and uses test protocol to exchange sequence no and timestamp Therefore, the LIME output WILL be “Model Agnostic“ Next Steps – Draft a LIME I-D detailing discussion and conclusions Slight DT Reorganization – We lost two members (thank you Nobo and Tissa). We gained one new member (hello Santosh!