RE: draft-bonica-tunneltrace-02

[neil.2.harrison@bt.com]

Thanks Loa.....yes I did read that but it did not answer my specific
questions.

Ron...it is possible perhaps you can help me with specific answers? 

regards, Neil

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Loa Andersson [mailto:loa.andersson@utfors.se]
> Sent: 27 February 2002 12:28
> To: neil.2.harrison@bt.com
> Cc: pingpan@juniper.net; kireeti@juniper.net; 
> Ronald.P.Bonica@wcom.com;
> ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: draft-bonica-tunneltrace-02
> 
> 
> Neil,
> 
> from the draft:
> 
> 
>    "Although these tunneling technologies provide operators with many
>     useful features, they also present management challenges. 
>  Operators
>     require a generic route tracing application that they can use to
>     verify tunnel paths and diagnose tunnel faults."
> 
> /Loa
> 
> neil.2.harrison@bt.com wrote:
> 
> > Ping/Loa,
> > 
> > Can you please be more specific about the 'problem' you are 
> talking about
> > here.....and are you both talking about the same problem or 
> different
> > problems?  It would help me at least understand better if 
> you can explain:
> > -	what is the problem?
> > -	what is the impact on customers?
> > -	how does the operator detect detect the problem in the 
> 1st place?
> > -	how does tunneltrace diagnose the problem?
> > -	what are the expected consequent actions to fix it?
> > 
> > thanks, Neil
> > 
> > 
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: Loa Andersson [mailto:loa.andersson@utfors.se]
> >>Sent: 27 February 2002 08:53
> >>To: Ping Pan
> >>Cc: 'Kireeti Kompella'; Ronald.P.Bonica@wcom.com; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> >>Subject: Re: draft-bonica-tunneltrace-02
> >>
> >>
> >>All,
> >>
> >>
> >>don't know if my opinion registred in this show of hands. 
> Anyway I say
> >>(a). It is an identified problem, we need to deal with it and 
> >>by making
> >>a WG doc, the working groupd can start working with it.
> >>
> >>/Loa
> >>
> >>Ping Pan wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Kireeti,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>The requirement from Ron address the problem that we have 
> >>>
> >>been seen in 
> >>
> >>>the network today. This is an issue that we have to deal 
> >>>
> >>with it NOW. I 
> >>
> >>>vote (a).
> >>>
> >>>- Ping
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>>>From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:kireeti@juniper.net]
> >>>>>Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2002 7:47 PM
> >>>>>To: David Allan
> >>>>>Cc: neil.2.harrison@bt.com; Ronald.P.Bonica@wcom.com; 
> >>>>>
> >>ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> >>
> >>>>>Subject: RE: draft-bonica-tunneltrace-02
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Let me say a few words:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>1) There was good support for this work (the requirements doc) to
> >>>>>  be a WG document at a previous IETF.  It is a good thing to
> >>>>>  follow up and check what the mailing list thinks, as 
> >>>>>
> >>not everyone
> >>
> >>>>>  attends IETFs.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>2) It is interesting that no one brought up the issue of 
> >>>>>
> >>whether this
> >>
> >>>>>  work (tunnel tracing) is in the charter or not at the meeting.
> >>>>>  There are those who think the charter isn't explicit 
> >>>>>
> >>enough.  I'll
> >>
> >>>>>  talk to the ADs and see (a) if they think that this *is* in the
> >>>>>  charter; (b) if not, are they willing to take it to 
> the IESG and
> >>>>>  add it to the charter.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>  My input on this (as WG chair) is that CCAMP is all 
> >>>>>
> >>about tunnels,
> >>
> >>>>>  and a protocol to debug and test tunnels is well within 
> >>>>>
> >>scope, even
> >>
> >>>>>  if not called out explicitly.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>  Note that the charter is *not* subject to WG 
> consensus, nor even
> >>>>>  the WG chairs.  The IESG (and IAB?) are solely responsible,
> >>>>>  although the WG and chairs can suggest changes.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>3) A document that is "in the right spirit" can become a 
> >>>>>
> >>WG document,
> >>
> >>>>>  even if there are disagreements about some details, and even
> >>>>>  "fundamental" questions.  Note that "fundamental" is often
> >>>>>  subjective.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I would like to have the mailing list equivalent of a 
> >>>>>
> >>'show of hands'
> >>
> >>>>>regarding this draft.  Do you think:
> >>>>>(a) it should be a WG document?
> >>>>>(b) it's good stuff, but not ready?
> >>>>>(c) we need a new start?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Please send in your opinions with one of the above up top.  Any
> >>>>>detailed reasoning you have for your opinion may follow.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Thanks!
> >>>>>Kireeti.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>-- 
> >>Loa Andersson
> >>Chief Architect,
> >>Utfors Research, Architecture and Future Lab (URAX)
> >>Utfors AB
> >>Råsundavägen 12
> >>Box 525, 169 29 Solna
> >>Office          +46 8 5270 2000
> >>Office direct   +46 8 5270 5038
> >>Mobile          +46 70 848 5038
> >>Email           loa.andersson@utfors.se
> >>WWW             www.utfors.se
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Loa Andersson
> Chief Architect,
> Utfors Research, Architecture and Future Lab (URAX)
> Utfors AB
> Råsundavägen 12
> Box 525, 169 29 Solna
> Office          +46 8 5270 2000
> Office direct   +46 8 5270 5038
> Mobile          +46 70 848 5038
> Email           loa.andersson@utfors.se
> WWW             www.utfors.se
>