> On Aug 5, 2019, at 10:45, Gray, Andrew A <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello opsawg, > > I spoke to a number of IETF folks at IETF 105, along with Tianran and Ignas > (who I thank for their feedback and suggestions), and it was decided that > opsawg would be the best place to at least start the conversations about a > new draft I am proposing, as detailed below. > > I document several use cases in the draft, but the short version is we are > wanting to standardize a method for different vendors to handle ASIC-level > replication of packets, to a remote server, including any and all information > that ASIC may have about the packet, along with at least part of the payload, > with a configurable sampling rate and filtering capabilities. > > Some things on my TODO list for it still: > > 1. I want to take a closer look at Flowspec rule definition, and see if that > can be adequately encoded here. It looks like the YANG model for Flowspec > rules was draft-wu-idr-flowspec-yang-cfg but that has since expired. > 2. I'm planning on talking at NANOG 77 in Austin with other operators to see > if there's additional use cases and how much appetite there is. > 3. I'm talking with a couple vendors about implementations - there is > interest here about it as well. > > I am sending out the -00 version of this draft and very much welcome comments > and feedback.
Hello, Andrew. I’ve read through this draft, and I have a few comments. I put it up in GitHub to make it a bit easier. In addition to your TODO, I know Cisco proposed ERSPAN to the IETF a few years ago, but I do not know what the discussion was around that (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-foschiano-erspan-03). Conceptually, your idea seems very similar. It is perhaps worth exploring what happened with that work. More to the contents of your doc, you have it marked informational, but you mention a few times about standardizing the interactions between components. You’re not standardizing as much as you’re defining a specific interaction. In https://github.com/xorrkaz/ietf-docs/blob/master/draft-gray-sampled-streaming-00#L195 you mention NETCONF explicitly. Why can’t this be done with RESTCONF, gRPC, etc.? In https://github.com/xorrkaz/ietf-docs/blob/master/draft-gray-sampled-streaming-00#L249, why must a Client re-query? This seems like telemetry would be ideal to update the Client about configuration changes to the stream. https://github.com/xorrkaz/ietf-docs/blob/master/draft-gray-sampled-streaming-00#L298, are these bit widths or byte? Either way, they seem too short for things like an interface-ref list. If it is bit width, then it wouldn’t even be long enough for a list of actions. https://github.com/xorrkaz/ietf-docs/blob/master/draft-gray-sampled-streaming-00#L309, if this is 24 bytes, that seems excessive for two 32-bit integers. If it’s bits, it’s not long enough. I have other more typographical comments at https://github.com/xorrkaz/ietf-docs/commit/7a849d2b12cd2dff151654f3ef37a87ac870a452#diff-580cadc3568cc3a979bb37410222e08b . Joe _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
