On 3/18/16 09:41, Petr Lapukhov wrote:
Folks,
If possible I would like to request a slot on the agenda to present
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lapukhov-dataplane-probe/
This to start work on in-band telemetry format standardization. The
technology is still at early stages, and I believe it would be helpful
to agree on common formats to be used across multiple silicon vendors.
Looking for feedback and finding a best place to continue this work at.
Petr, I was going to ask these in the meeting, but given the number of
questions, I thought it better to ask on the list.
* How do you propose the populated data to be handled normally? Will
the probe destination (i.e., the dest address of the UDP packet) be
expected to understand these, or will loopback mode have to be used?
The reason I ask is that I'm not sure what happens if all nodes in the
network do not support this probe. Could this give more network insight
to the destination, and thus be a security weakness?
* Related to the question above what would happen if a set a hop count
of four, but the fourth device (before my destination) has not awareness
of this telemetry system?
* Why not use ifIndex values for port IDs? It seems to me that having a
more standard and known cross-vendor way to identify ports is useful.
* You do not list IANA considerations, but it seems to me that your
probe types would be well-suited for a registry that perhaps could live
with IANA? It would also be useful to have some reserved space for
private extensions where possible.
* I think you mentioned it at the mic, but the draft doesn't really
address what happens if a device supports this telemetry system, but
does not support a specific probe type? For example, what if I define
type 50 down the road, but not all of my devices/hardware yet support
this? What happens then?
Joe
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
