Hi Robin,
I know for a fact that there have been applications written that do passive
monitoring using IS-IS and simply advertising yourself in overload mode.
Additionally, given that all routes in an area have the same LSDB, you don't
really have the same requirements as BGP.
With respect to scalability, I believe the advantage of the YANG models is more
in terms of consumption and having a single network programmability paradigm
rather unique per-protocol monitoring. Additionally, YANG, NETCONF, RESTCONF,
gNMI, and streaming telemetry are happening now irrespective of your proposal.
I agree that a custom protocol will result in fewer bits on the wire and
potentially less processing on the network device. However, I certainly don't
believe that this alone is a reason to do it.
Thanks,
Acee
On 7/5/18, 6:49 AM, "GROW on behalf of Lizhenbin" <grow-boun...@ietf.org on
behalf of 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>; Lizhenbin
<lizhen...@huawei.com>; grow@ietf.org; ops...@ietf.org
Cc: l...@ietf.org; rt...@ietf.org; Guyunan (Yunan Gu, IP Technology
Research Dept. NW) <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 on behalf of 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> 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>; grow@ietf.org; 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 on behalf of
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]
Sent: 2018年7月2日 20:07
To: Zhuangshunwan <zhuangshun...@huawei.com>; Lizhenbin
<lizhen...@huawei.com>; Guyunan (Yunan Gu, IP Technology Research Dept. NW)
<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.
The IETF Secretariat
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
GROW@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
ops...@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
l...@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
GROW@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
GROW@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
