Hi Acee,

Thanks.  This was also discussed in the NETMOD WG meeting (I know that you had 
a conflict).  

My reading of the consensus in the room was that the histogram statistics 
should be deferred at this time.  In particular, it seems like it would take 
some time/effort to agree on exactly how these counters should be modelled.  I 
also said that I would contact the IEEE 802.3 WG chair to see if we could 
progress a histogram model within the IETF.  I have sent an email out, but not 
heard anything back yet.

There was consensus in the room to add a sub-interface demux drop counter into 
the current module.

Lou also proposed that I rename "l2-mtu" to something like "max-frame-size" for 
consistency (I need to check the recording).

It also looks like I should generate and add -state trees to the appendix.

Thanks,
Rob


-----Original Message-----
From: Acee Lindem (acee) 
Sent: 05 August 2019 18:52
To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[email protected]>; Kent Watsen 
<[email protected]>; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-intf-ext-yang-07

Hi Rob, 
It seems these counters have been considered at great length. I agree we should 
move forward with the model as it is today.
Thanks,
Acee

On 7/17/19, 11:36 AM, "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <[email protected]> wrote:

    Hi Acee,
    
    Thanks for the review, and apologies for the delayed reply.
    
    Regarding your stats question, there was some effort to handle this as part 
of defining the Ethernet interface YANG (IEEE 802.3.2-2019) 
(https://github.com/YangModels/yang/tree/master/standard/ieee/published/802.3) 
that I was involved in the earlier parts of.  Please see the attached XLS that 
was my earlier effort to rationalize the different ethernet interfaces counters 
between RFC 7223, Ethernet YANG, Etherlike MIB, RMON MIBs, and the counters 
exposed in the 802.3 clause 30 management API.
    
    For physical Ethernet interfaces (and anything that looks very similar to a 
physical Ethernet interface) then I think that we should be well covered by the 
combination of what is in ietf-interfaces, and IEEE 802.3.2.
    
    There are also some counters that apply to all Ethernet-like interfaces 
(really anything using Ethernet framing, but not an Ethernet physical layer).  
The only counter currently defined in this category is 
in-drop-unknown-dest-mac-pkts in ietf-interfaces-ethernet-like.  Arguably we 
could also add a drop counter for frames that could not be demuxed to a 
sub-interface because it didn't match any of the sub-interface match 
expressions.
    
    There was one set of counters that 802.3.2 didn't want to include in their 
YANG module which related to the histogram frame statistics.  E.g. counters 
like the following (taken from IOS XR):
    
        Input pkts 65-127 bytes     = 0
        Input pkts 128-255 bytes    = 0
        Input pkts 256-511 bytes    = 0
        Input pkts 512-1023 bytes   = 0
        Input pkts 1024-1518 bytes  = 0
        Input pkts 1519-Max bytes   = 0
    
        Output pkts 65-127 bytes    = 0
        Output pkts 128-255 bytes   = 0
        Output pkts 256-511 bytes   = 0
        Output pkts 512-1023 bytes  = 0
        Output pkts 1024-1518 bytes = 0
        Output pkts 1519-Max bytes  = 0
    
    The 802.3 YANG WG had two issues with including counters like these:
    (1) They didn't really want to define histogram counter values for MTUs 
that are above the officially sanctioned MTU of 1514/1518 in the Ethernet 
specification, even though a lot of hardware supports up to 9K+.
    (2) The bucket ranges, at least once you get past the "512-1023" bucket, 
seem to somewhat vary by ASIC vendor.
    (3) IEEE 802.3 has a well defined internal management API (802.3 clause 
30), and these histogram counters are not currently defined as part of that 
internal management API.  Extending the internal 802.3 management API seems 
tricky due to point (1) and (2) above.
    
    There was a suggestion in the 802.3 discussions that these counters could 
be defined in an IETF YANG module (skirting the IEEE concerns about maximum 
MTUs).  The proposal was to allow the operational data to return a list of 
bucket entries, where each entry defines the inclusive range of the bucket, and 
a count of the pkts that matched the bucket range (in either the ingress or 
egress direction).  This list would sit alongside a RECOMMENDATION of what 
bucket sizes to use, basically doubling each time up to the MTU, with some 
consideration around the 1514/1518/1522 boundary, but allowing freedom for a 
device to accurately return the histogram ranges actually supported by the 
hardware.
    
    However, I'm not sure it is worth delaying these drafts to add these 
counters in now, particularly because there are dependencies on them.  Possibly 
best done as future work?  Do you, or anyone else in the WG have an opinion on 
this?
    
    Thanks,
    Rob
    
    
    
    -----Original Message-----
    From: netmod <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
    Sent: 10 July 2019 14:09
    To: Kent Watsen <[email protected]>; [email protected]
    Subject: Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-intf-ext-yang-07
    
    I have reviewed the subject document and support publication. I have the 
following comment:
    
      Perhaps ietf-interface-ethernet-like module 
ethlike:ethernet-like/ethlike:statistics could include a subset of the counters 
from RFC 3635. I say a subset since some of these counters are a bit archaic 
given the state of the technology and judgement should be applied on which to 
include.
    
      Thanks,
    Acee 
    
    On 7/9/19, 8:16 PM, "netmod on behalf of Kent Watsen" 
<[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:
    
        All,
        
        This starts a twelve-day working group last call for 
draft-ietf-netmod-intf-ext-yang-07
        
        The working group last call ends on July 21 (the day before the NETMOD 
105 sessions).  Please send your comments to the working group mailing list.
        
        Positive comments, e.g., "I've reviewed this document and believe it is 
ready for publication", are welcome!  This is useful and important, even from 
authors.
        
        Thank you,
        NETMOD Chairs
        _______________________________________________
        netmod mailing list
        [email protected]
        https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
        
    
    _______________________________________________
    netmod mailing list
    [email protected]
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
    

_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Reply via email to