Dear Chaitanya, Thanks a lot for the updated document. As previously stated, as a network operator, I value contributions describing reasons why packets are being dropped.
I reviewed the latest document revision and have the following comments: Looking at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-mvmd-opsawg-ipfix-fwd-exceptions-08#section-4.2.1 and comparing to https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7270.html#section-4.12, the listed examples in table 3 are rather generic and do not justify to be enterprise and could or even should be IANA. I support that IE89 ForwardingStatius reason codes are being added, and your provided list is a good starting point, https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-opsawg-evans-discardmodel#name-information-model has also some interesting input to be considered. Regarding https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-mvmd-opsawg-ipfix-fwd-exceptions-08#section-4.2.2, I welcome that the author detailed the meaning of the entity. As I commented in with the -02 review, it was not clear how it differentiates to IE15 ipNextHopIPv4Address IE18 bgpNextHopIPv4Address IE62 ipNextHopIPv6Address IE63 bgpNextHopIPv6Address IE47 mplsTopLabelIPv4Address Reading now the section, I understood that the authors try to capture the exception of a hierarchical lookup failure. Is that correct? Reading https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-mvmd-opsawg-ipfix-fwd-exceptions-08#section-4.2.3, I understand that you would like to gain insights at which level of the hierarchical lookup the failure occurred. Correct? Reading https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-mvmd-opsawg-ipfix-fwd-exceptions-08#section-4.2.4, I did not understood the difference to IE252 ingressPhysicalInterface. My expectation is that if sampling is being applied to a logical LACP interface that with IE252 the physical interface ifindex where the packet is being received is exported and with IE10 ingressInterface the logical LACP ifindex. Best wishes Thomas From: OPSAWG <opsawg-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Venkata Naga Chaitanya Munukutla Sent: Monday, November 6, 2023 3:56 PM To: opsawg@ietf.org Cc: Shivam Vaid <shiv...@juniper.net>; Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vbee...@juniper.net>; Aditya Mahale <amah...@google.com>; pateldev...@google.com Subject: [OPSAWG] ipfix-fwd-exceptions - Request WG adoption Hello OPSAWG experts, We've posted version v08 for IPFIX Extensions for Forwarding Exceptions (minor editorial changes). https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mvmd-opsawg-ipfix-fwd-exceptions/08/ The document has been stable for a while and we believe it is sufficiently baked to be considered for WG adoption. The last time we presented this draft (IETF116), there seemed to be a reasonable amount of interest in the work (as captured in the meeting notes -- https://notes.ietf.org/notes-ietf-116-opsawg) . We would like to invite more feedback on this document and also formally request WG adoption. Thanks, Chaitanya (on behalf of co-authors/contributors) Juniper Business Use Only
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
