Ketan

>From an operations perspective at the end of the day the job of IPFIX is to
support the various data plane encapsulation types so that the flow graph
and fields flow data records can be constructed.

So here as long as you are able to capture the flow records, and record the
flows over the SR-MPLS data plane then to that end whatever is required to
meet that objective to construct capture and record all flows.

So that being said I think as long as the data plane encapsulation is
captured and supported for SR-MPLS label SID SRGB is supported then I think
the objective of the draft is solved.  I don’t think adding control plane
complexity into the flow records is necessary to accomplish the objective.

I see the point of being able to differentiate topmost label underlay of
MPLS label or TE from SR-MPLS.

That is as far as you need to go are my thoughts.

Kind Regards

Gyan


On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 1:09 AM Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ketant=
40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Thomas,
>
>
>
>
>
> I should have been more clear in my email.
>
>
>
>
>
> The proposal/suggestion is to add the following to the IPFIX MPLS Label
> type identifier registry:
>
>
>
>
>
>    - SR Prefix SID
>    - SR Adjacency SID
>    - SR Binding SID
>    - SR BGP Peering SID
>    - … and so on
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This helps identification of specific SR-MPLS segment types as well as
> differentiating them from LDP, RSVP-TE, etc.
>
>
>
>
>
> And my questions were:
>
>
>
>
>
>    1. What value is provided for IPFIX analysis if the SR Prefix SID was
>    being signalled via OSPF or ISIS?
>
>    2. What value is provided for IPFIX analysis if it was a Adjacency SID
>    or a LAN Adjacency SID?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I am asking for WG to weigh the implementation complexities and overheads
> with the proposed details of SR-MPLS segments in IPFIX against the benefit
> (if any) that they provide for the flow analysis
>
> and monitoring.
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Ketan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* thomas.g...@swisscom.com <thomas.g...@swisscom.com>
>
>
>
>
> *Sent:* 15 August 2020 09:40
>
>
> *To:* Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ket...@cisco.com>; han...@gredler.at
>
>
> *Cc:* lsr@ietf.org; spr...@ietf.org; ops...@ietf.org
>
>
> *Subject:* RE: [Lsr] draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Ketan,
>
>
>
>
>
> Thank you very much for the review and feedback.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>    - What or how much value be there on determining whether a SR Prefix
>    SID was signalled/programmed on a node via OSPFv2/OSPFv3/ISIS – what 
> matters
>
>    and is more important is that it is a Prefix SID. Hardly any
>    deployments would be running multiple protocols and learning the same
>    prefix from different IGPs.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> As Jeff already pointed out. Multiple IGP labelling protocols are used  in
> networks when migrations are ongoing. Usually in a life cycle. Migrating
>
> from LDP to OSPFv2/OSPFv3/ISIS SR TLV. This is/was also the case at
> Swisscom when we first discovered this shortcoming in vendor
> implementations. The key point here, with these additional IPFIX MPLS Label
> Type identifiers we enable the possibility to verify
>
> the label protocol migration without taking the label value into the
> consideration.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>    - IPFIX may be picking this information from a FIB in some
>    implementation where the protocol does not matter and this information is
>    not available
>
>    therein.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I am not sure if you have seen the presentation in IETF 108 at OPSAWG and
> SPRING.
>
>
>
> https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/108/slides/slides-108-opsawg-export-of-mpls-sr-label-type-information-in-ipfix-00.pdf
>
>
>
>
>
> Slide 2 shows Cisco as example vendor which implemented IE 46, MPLS Label
> Type identifier. There is an open ddts where vendor feasibility has
>
> been clarified. Ping me off the list when you like to have more details.
>
>
>
>
>
> I do understand your point that not all the vendors are capable to
> implement IE 46. But that’s not the point about the IPFIX IE registry.
>
> The IE registry enables that an IPFIX implementation can refer to the
> right code point. With RFC 5102 the decision has been made that MPLS Label
> Type identifier
>
> make sense and can be implemented. draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type
> just extends the IE 46 registry with the Segment Routing label protocol
> code points so when OSPFv2/OSPFv3/ISIS SR TLV is used, and IE 46 is
> supported, the IPFIX implementation can point
>
> to the right code point.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>    - On some nodes, the same Prefix SID may be learnt via both BGP and
>    IGP – what would we use/show?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> In this case the IE 46 shows the label protocol which was used to program
> the FIB.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>    -
>
>    For that table proposal, it is very difficult and in some cases not
>    possible to different between Prefix and Node and Anycast SID. Many of
>    these types are control plane elements and we can be sure more
>
>    get added.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I fully agree. As a network operator its still hard to understand the
> architecture and constraints within a router. When monitoring capabilities
>
> are discussed at IETF, this is the usual topic. What is possible, what
> make sense. By purpose, all available SID types are listed in the draft.
> This with the aim to start the discussion in the working groups what is
> possible what makes sense. I would be interested
>
> to get your and also Jeff's feedback.
>
>
>
>
>
> In above mentioned slides I described how TI-LFA application would benefit
> of visibility in the FIB by showing where Adj-SID was used. This
>
> should be a simple example why it make sense not only to look at which
> label protocol was used to forward a particular packet, but also which SID
> type to further understand the intend why this label is being pushed.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I hope this makes all sense. Looking forward for reply.
>
>
>
>
>
> Best wishes
>
>
> Thomas
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ket...@cisco.com>
>
>
>
>
> *Sent:* Friday, August 14, 2020 7:35 PM
>
>
> *To:* Graf Thomas, INI-NET-DCF <thomas.g...@swisscom.com>;
>
> han...@gredler.at
>
>
> *Cc:* lsr@ietf.org; SPRING WG <spr...@ietf.org>
>
>
> *Subject:* RE: [Lsr] draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> < also copying Spring WG for their review/inputs >
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Thomas/All,
>
>
>
>
>
> I have reviewed the draft and would like to share a different perspective..
>
>
>
>
>
> What or how much value be there on determining whether a SR Prefix SID was
> signalled/programmed on a node via OSPFv2/OSPFv3/ISIS – what matters and is
> more important is that it is a Prefix SID. Hardly
>
> any deployments would be running multiple protocols and learning the same
> prefix from different IGPs. IPFIX may be picking this information from a
> FIB in some implementation where the protocol does not matter and this
> information is not available therein.
>
>
>
>
>
> On some nodes, the same Prefix SID may be learnt via both BGP and IGP –
> what would we use/show?
>
>
>
>
>
> I would recommend using SR Prefix SID, SR Adjacency SID, SR Binding SID,
> SR BGP Peering SID and so on … for the MPLS Label Type.
>
>
>
>
>
> This also takes away the need for the second table that is being proposed
> to a large extent. For that table proposal, it is very difficult and in
> some cases not possible to different between Prefix
>
> and Node and Anycast SID. Many of these types are control plane elements
> and we can be sure more get added. Is there really much value in
> differentiation between say an Adjacency SID and LAN Adjacency SID?
>
>
>
>
>
> Could we evaluate the implementation overhead and complexity of this level
> of categorization/information in IPFIX against their value in flow analysis
> to perhaps consider a middle ground?
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Ketan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org>
>
> *On Behalf Of *thomas.g...@swisscom.com
>
>
> *Sent:* 31 July 2020 20:52
>
>
> *To:* han...@gredler.at
>
>
> *Cc:* lsr@ietf.org
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Lsr] draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Hannes,
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks a lot for the feedback. Yes, makes completely sense. Will take it
> for the next update...
>
>
>
>
>
> Best Wishes
>
>
> Thomas
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Hannes Gredler <han...@gredler.at>
>
>
>
>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 29, 2020 9:31 AM
>
>
> *To:* Graf Thomas, INI-NET-DCF <thomas.g...@swisscom.com>
>
>
> *Cc:* lsr@ietf.org
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Lsr] draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thomas,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I have one comment/suggestion to Paragraph 4 (IANA Considerations).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Please add also a code point for BGP Prefix-SID - it’s quite popular in DC
> deployments.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8669
> <https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Frfc8669&data=02%7C01%7CThomas.Graf%40swisscom.com%7Cb7d5f12ae9054d04978608d8407869f6%7C364e5b87c1c7420d9beec35d19b557a1%7C1%7C0%7C637330233200615130&sdata=Fp1WH4uMm3oxp8GGzt3IfexyzHzflHA3FC5QE5DixBk%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> thanks,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> /hannes
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 28.07.2020, at 10:11,
>
> thomas.g...@swisscom.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear lsr,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I presented the following draft
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Export of MPLS Segment Routing Label Type Information in IP Flow
> Information Export (IPFIX)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type-04
> <https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type-04&data=02%7C01%7CThomas.Graf%40swisscom.com%7Cb7d5f12ae9054d04978608d8407869f6%7C364e5b87c1c7420d9beec35d19b557a1%7C1%7C0%7C637330233200625087&sdata=q9GCxkzGIMx9p4WsXwITL4t1GMaP6dj6H4gu7hJAROY%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> at the spring working group at IETF 108 yesterday
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/108/slides/slides-108-spring-ip-flow-information-export-ipfix-00.pdf
> <https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fproceedings%2F108%2Fslides%2Fslides-108-spring-ip-flow-information-export-ipfix-00.pdf&data=02%7C01%7CThomas.Graf%40swisscom.com%7Cb7d5f12ae9054d04978608d8407869f6%7C364e5b87c1c7420d9beec35d19b557a1%7C1%7C0%7C637330233200625087&sdata=%2FNT6dZ%2F6vsv69oW3g3iirmzygDI4UPn7a2VyGkwYCYo%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> and today at OPSAWG where I call for adoption.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This draft adds additional segment routing code points for in the IANA
> IPFIX registry for IS-IS, OPSFv2 and OPSF v3 and segment routing SID types
> to gain
>
> further insights into the MPLS-SR forwarding-plane.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I have been asked to not only gather feedback from spring and opsawg but
> also from lsr and mpls working groups since these code points are related
> to link
>
> state routing protocols and mpls data plane.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I am looking forward to your feedback and input.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Best Wishes
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thomas Graf
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
> Lsr mailing list
>
>
> Lsr@ietf.org
>
>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
> <https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flsr&data=02%7C01%7CThomas.Graf%40swisscom..com%7Cb7d5f12ae9054d04978608d8407869f6%7C364e5b87c1c7420d9beec35d19b557a1%7C1%7C0%7C637330233200635044&sdata=TsgdeCEH3Y5f%2BeHrPpANrK%2Bl5qT2TfSre2rPJZvoOuQ%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Lsr mailing list
>
> Lsr@ietf.org
>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>
> --

<http://www.verizon.com/>

*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *



*M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike *Silver Spring, MD
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Reply via email to