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