Hi Robin,
On 7/5/18, 6:35 AM, "Lizhenbin" <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Acee,
It is not described clearly in the draft that reusing BMP is also a
possible option for monitoring IGP. We will refine the draft.
It doesn't matter where you put it, it is still an alternate paradigm for IS-IS
management.
Expect to have more discussion with you in IETF 102.
I'm sure we will. I really don't think this meets the "stick to the wall" test
for GROW.
Thanks,
Acee
Thanks,
Robin
-----Original Message-----
From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2018 12:09 AM
To: Lizhenbin <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: Guyunan (Yunan Gu, IP Technology Research Dept. NW)
<[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [GROW] FW: New Version Notification for
draft-gu-network-mornitoring-protol-00.txt
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" <[email protected]> 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:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem
(acee)
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2018 9:24 PM
To: Guyunan (Yunan Gu, IP Technology Research Dept. NW)
<[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]
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)" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]>
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: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 2018年7月2日 20:07
To: Zhuangshunwan <[email protected]>; Lizhenbin
<[email protected]>; Guyunan (Yunan Gu, IP Technology Research Dept. NW)
<[email protected]>
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
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
