Robin, With respect to your points below:
* #1 – The draft ISIS model doesn’t seem to have many lateral dependencies as far as I can see. And if it is incomplete from the perspective of monitoring the health of ISIS, then it should be extended. I’m not sure why it would be difficult to stabilise the definition? * #2 – This seems to be the same issue of an incomplete model. Can you clearly articulate any data that you think should be available that cannot be modelled in YANG? * #3 – Agreed that exporting high volume, low latency telemetry one the baseline transport suggested in ietf-netconf-yang-push would perhaps have issues. This is one of the reasons why transport extensibility is an explicit part of the draft. * #4 – IMO, as long as the encoding for data is clearly defined in an "open" way, then this is not really an issue yet. I still think we need to experiment with encodings, but I do not think an entirely new protocol will serve network operators. I’d also like to add to the last point and say that I do not think adding new protocols and new encodings will serve network operators well. Over the last few years operators have been making it clear that they want to simplify their interactions with the network, and not have more things they need to understand thrown at them. Acee isn’t suggesting deprecating BMP, and neither am I, but in at least two discussions with operators I have attended, when introduced to BMP, their initial reaction could be summarised as "this looks interesting, but why have you introduced another protocol for this?" I completely support identifying the use cases you have, but would really like to see us focus on rectifying any deficiencies we can identify with existing proposals, rather than dilute our efforts. Cheers, Einar On 5 Jul 2018, at 11:48, Lizhenbin <lizhen...@huawei.com<mailto:lizhen...@huawei.com>> wrote: Hi Jeff, Before we propose the NMP idea, we carefully compared it with the existing NETCONF, gRPC and YANG models work: 1. Based on my experience in the YANG model work, it may be not satisfactory for these models does not define config/oper of all features of specific protocol and these models have much relation with each other and it is difficult to stabilize the definition. 2. For monitoring the control protocol, it is not enough based on the existing YANG models such as the packets of control protocol which should be monitored but not defined in YANG models. 3. Performance concern on the existing NETCONF. 4. Standardization of the existing gRPC. We would like to define the NMP based on the usecases. That is, a specific set of parameters exported by NMP can satisfy the purpose of a specific usecase. Thus the protocol can be deployed incrementally. Best Regards, Robin -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Tantsura [mailto:jefftant.i...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2018 5:15 AM To: Acee Lindem (acee) <acee=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:acee=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>>; Lizhenbin <lizhen...@huawei.com<mailto:lizhen...@huawei.com>>; grow@ietf.org<mailto:grow@ietf.org>; ops...@ietf.org<mailto:ops...@ietf.org> Cc: l...@ietf.org<mailto:l...@ietf.org>; rt...@ietf.org<mailto:rt...@ietf.org>; Guyunan (Yunan Gu, IP Technology Research Dept. NW) <guyu...@huawei.com<mailto:guyu...@huawei.com>> Subject: Re: [Lsr] [GROW] FW: New Version Notification for draft-gu-network-mornitoring-protol-00.txt Robin, Pretty much same comment as Acee - I'm not clear as to why... Protocol YANG models developed in the last years clearly provide much better and more scalable approach to what has been proposed in the draft, since we are talking is-is - look at notifications in draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg. How do you propose to corelate operational state to configuration? gRPC provides high performance RPC framework to streaming the telemetry data that is structured, easy to consume and extend. I'm not going to go into technical discussion, however would appreciate your response as to why NMP (please do not restate the points in the section 4 of the draft, they are quite incorrect) Thanks! Cheers, Jeff On 7/3/18, 09:21, "Lsr on behalf of Acee Lindem (acee)" <lsr-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of acee=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:acee=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote: Hi Robin, I'm not arguing to deprecate BMP. What I am arguing is that the fact that BMP was created 15 years ago doesn't necessarily mean we should create an analogous IMP for IS-IS given the current IETF OPS technologies and the fact that faster link speeds and Moore's law facilitate deployment of these new OPS technologies. Anyway, I looked at the agenda and I will definitely attend GROW on Wednesday afternoon for the discussion. Thanks, Acee On 7/3/18, 6:40 AM, "Lizhenbin" <lizhen...@huawei.com<mailto:lizhen...@huawei.com>> wrote: Hi Acee, Thank for your attention to the new draft. Please refer to my reply inline. Best Regards, Robin -----Original Message----- From: OPSAWG [mailto:opsawg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee) Sent: Monday, July 02, 2018 9:24 PM To: Guyunan (Yunan Gu, IP Technology Research Dept. NW) <guyu...@huawei.com<mailto:guyu...@huawei.com>>; grow@ietf.org<mailto:grow@ietf.org>; ops...@ietf.org<mailto:ops...@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] [GROW] FW: New Version Notification for draft-gu-network-mornitoring-protol-00.txt Hi Yunan, Shunwan, and Zhenbin, What are the advantages of inventing a new protocol over just using YANG and NETCONF, RESTCONF, or gNMI? [Robin] In the draft we simply mention the difference between NMP and protocols you mentioned for the management plane. Though there is maybe some overlap between the two types of protocols, the protocols you mentioned is not enough for monitoring the control protocol. For example, would we like to use YANG and NETCONF, RESTCONF, or gNMI to export the packets of control protocols such as update message of BGP and/or ISIS PDU, etc. for the purpose of monitoring? Operators and vendors are doing this anyway. A second alternative would be to listen passively in IS-IS (or OSPF for that matter). Why would anyone want this? [Robin] In fact we tried the method you proposed. From our point of view, the basic design principle should be that the monitoring entity should be decoupled from the monitored entity. This is to avoid following cases: 1. The failure of operation of the control protocol may affect the monitoring at the same time. 2. The limitation of the control protocol will also have effect on the monitoring. For example, for the method of listening passively, if there are multiple hops between the listener and the network devices, it has to set up a tunnel as the virtual link for direct connection. But the TCP-based monitoring protocol need not care about it. As far as where it belongs, we have a rather full agenda in LSR so I don't think we want to devote time to it there at IETF 102. [Robin] Though the WG the draft should belong to is not determined yet, we think the work belongs to OPS area and send the notice to GROW WG and OPSAWG. We also applied for the presentation in the two WGs. We should have copied the notice to the related WGs of RTG area. So the LSR WG and RTGWG WG mailing list are added. More comments and suggestions are welcome. Thanks, Acee On 7/2/18, 8:20 AM, "GROW on behalf of Guyunan (Yunan Gu, IP Technology Research Dept. NW)" <grow-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:grow-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of guyu...@huawei.com<mailto:guyu...@huawei.com>> wrote: Dear GROW & OPSAWG WGs, We have proposed a Network Monitoring Protocol (NMP) for the control plane OAM. NMP for ISIS is illustrated in this draft to showcase the benefit and operation of NMP. Yet, we haven't decided which WG it belongs to. Comments and suggestions are very welcome! Thank you! Yunan Gu Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd -----Original Message----- From: internet-dra...@ietf.org<mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org> [mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org] Sent: 2018年7月2日 20:07 To: Zhuangshunwan <zhuangshun...@huawei.com<mailto:zhuangshun...@huawei.com>>; Lizhenbin <lizhen...@huawei.com<mailto:lizhen...@huawei.com>>; Guyunan (Yunan Gu, IP Technology Research Dept. NW) <guyu...@huawei.com<mailto:guyu...@huawei.com>> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-gu-network-mornitoring-protol-00.txt A new version of I-D, draft-gu-network-mornitoring-protol-00.txt has been successfully submitted by Yunan Gu and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-gu-network-mornitoring-protol Revision: 00 Title: Network Monitoring Protocol (NMP) Document date: 2018-07-02 Group: Individual Submission Pages: 15 URL: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gu-network-mornitoring-protol-00.txt Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gu-network-mornitoring-protol/ Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gu-network-mornitoring-protol-00 Htmlized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-gu-network-mornitoring-protol Abstract: To enable automated network OAM (Operations, administration and management), the availability of network protocol running status information is a fundamental step. In this document, a network monitoring protocol (NMP) is proposed to provision the information related to running status of IGP (Interior Gateway Protocol) and other control protocols. It can facilitate the network troubleshooting of control protocols in a network domain. Typical network issues are illustrated as the usecases of NMP for ISIS to showcase the necessity of NMP. Then the operations and the message formats of NMP for ISIS are defined. In this document ISIS is used as the illustration protocol, and the case of OSPF and other control protocols will be included in the future version. Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org<http://tools.ietf.org>. The IETF Secretariat _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list GROW@ietf.org<mailto:GROW@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list ops...@ietf.org<mailto:ops...@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list l...@ietf.org<mailto:l...@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list ops...@ietf.org<mailto:ops...@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list GROW@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
