Re: [NANOG] OAM and multiple choice questions

[David Zimmerman via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>]

Thanks, Shane — as the OP, I can say that TWAMP (and STAMP) did cross my radar early on, but didn't appear to be a home 
run in solving for my loss-alerting use case (although it does help for other adjacent synthetic testing contexts).

-dp

From: sronan () ronan-online com <sronan () ronan-online com>
Date: Wednesday, April 30, 2025 at 5:08 PM
To: nanog () lists nanog org <nanog () lists nanog org>
Cc: David Zimmerman <dzimmerman () linkedin com>, James Bensley <lists+nanog () bensley me>, nanog () lists nanog org 
<nanog () lists nanog org>
Subject: Re: [NANOG] OAM and multiple choice questions
Take a look at TWAMP, which may solve your problems.

Shane

> On Apr 30, 2025, at 7:56 AM, James Bensley via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org> wrote:
>
> latency, and packet loss of the service, and in the case of multi-segment pseudowires check this e2e, and for each 
> segment. We also wanted to provide link-loss forwarding for the services. Finally, we wanted to allow our customers 
> to also use CFM over our service, so we used levels 0-3 internally, and passed levels 4-7 transparently
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/P5RY6OBEUDB5QKJKTB2TTJ6DPDRCXHKZ/