Subject: [rbridge] draft-tissa-trill-oam-03 : ICMP vs RFC 4379 message channel

From: "Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2012 08:08:30 -0800

Dear All

Current draft-tissa-till-oam utilize ICMP extensions defined in RFC
4884. I have also heard preference of using UDP based messaging channel
defined in RFC 4379.

Advantage of using RFC 4379 methods is we can utilize the same framework
and OAM challenges in TRILL and MPLS world are similar. However, we need
to define new TLV series and message types. Question arise whether we
should use the same wellknown UDP port used in MPLS OAM or a use a
different UDP port.

Advantage of ICMP method is we are utilizing the ICMP infrastructure
that is commonly utilized in IP world. However, we need to define RFC
4884 extensions and it also heavily depends on acceptance of individual
submission draft-shen-traceroute-ping-ext-04.

Would like to see the preference from the WG on specific method over the
other ?

Thanks

Tissa

_______________________________________________
rbridge mailing list
[email-masked]
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge

---

From: Sam Aldrin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2012 09:23:29 -0800

I would prefer UDP based extensions on the lines of RFC4379, with a standard port assigned for TRILL OAM packets. With UDP based solution, the change control is in the TRILL OAM specification. When ICMP is used, the stack has to be upgraded, which is not effective for future versions. Where as with UDP version, it is totally independent to stack upgrades, just like MPLS OAM and also UDP stack is present on RBridges (SNMP access).

cheers
-sam
On Mar 2, 2012, at 8:08 AM, Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir) wrote:

> Dear All
>  
> Current draft-tissa-till-oam utilize ICMP extensions defined in RFC 4884. I have also heard preference of using UDP based messaging channel defined in RFC 4379.
>  
> Advantage of using RFC 4379 methods is we can utilize the same framework and OAM challenges in TRILL and MPLS world are similar. However, we need to define new TLV series and message types. Question arise whether we should use the same wellknown UDP port used in MPLS OAM or a use a different UDP port.
>  
> Advantage of ICMP method is we are utilizing the ICMP infrastructure that is commonly utilized in IP world. However, we need to define RFC 4884 extensions and it also heavily depends on acceptance of individual submission draft-shen-traceroute-ping-ext-04.
>  
> Would like to see the preference from the WG on specific method over the other ?
>  
> Thanks
> Tissa

---

From: Vishwas Manral <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2012 10:11:15 -0800

Hi Tissa,

I am not sure we would want to use the same port for de-multiplexing MPLS
OAM and UDP based TRILL OAM packets.

On another note, I do know that folks use different channels for testing
real application behavior in current networks. So yes UDP based channels
should be good too.

My biggest concern is that we should not have different message formats
when the application works over different layers. It is for that reason
that BFD has been so successful (the same message format/ state machine)
irrespective of the lower layer protocol.

Thanks,
Vishwas

On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 8:08 AM, Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir) <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> Dear All****
>
> ** **
>
> Current draft-tissa-till-oam utilize ICMP extensions defined in RFC 4884.
> I have also heard preference of using UDP based messaging channel defined
> in RFC 4379.****
>
> ** **
>
> and OAM challenges in TRILL and MPLS world are similar. However, we need to
> define new TLV series and message types. Question arise whether we should
> use the same wellknown UDP port used in MPLS OAM or a use a different UDP
> port.****
>
> ** **
>
> Advantage of ICMP method is we are utilizing the ICMP infrastructure that
> is commonly utilized in IP world. However, we need to define RFC 4884
> extensions and it also heavily depends on acceptance of individual
> submission draft-shen-traceroute-ping-ext-04.****
>
> ** **
>
> other ?****
> ** **
> Thanks****
> Tissa****

---

From: Sam Aldrin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2012 10:47:53 -0800

Do not have much preference of reusing the same port or not. With a programmer hat on, who developed rfc4379 and it's implementation, it will be klugy, and have issues when process is/was implemented in h.w. For ex: had issue with vccv when used by lsp ping and bfd, due to incompatible hardware in the network.
Having said that, idea is to use similar message or tlv formats, will help immensely in adopting the standard.

Cheers
Sam

Sent from my iPad

On Mar 2, 2012, at 10:11 AM, Vishwas Manral <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hi Tissa,
> 
> I am not sure we would want to use the same port for de-multiplexing MPLS OAM and UDP based TRILL OAM packets.
> 
> On another note, I do know that folks use different channels for testing real application behavior in current networks. So yes UDP based channels should be good too. 
> 
> My biggest concern is that we should not have different message formats when the application works over different layers. It is for that reason that BFD has been so successful (the same message format/ state machine) irrespective of the lower layer protocol.
> 
> Thanks,
> Vishwas
> 
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 8:08 AM, Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir) <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Dear All
> 
>  
>

---

From: Jon Hudson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 03:05:45 -0700

The number one concern I hear from Users about anything UDP is that it can
be dropped and is stateless. (big issue with VXLAN) As this is the same for
ICMP I see no practical difference to the User which one is used.

On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Sam Aldrin <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Do not have much preference of reusing the same port or not. With a
> programmer hat on, who developed rfc4379 and it's implementation, it will
> be klugy, and have issues when process is/was implemented in h.w. For ex:
> had issue with vccv when used by lsp ping and bfd, due to incompatible
> hardware in the network.

-- 
"Do not lie. And do not do what you hate."
_______________________________________________
rbridge mailing list
[email-masked]
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge