Dear all,
On 3/19/2024 10:40 AM, thomas.g...@swisscom.com wrote:
Dear Justin, Dear OPSAWG and IPPM working groups
Thanks a lot for the presentation at IPPM. I believe that this work
needs further refinement by defining also IPFIX entities for IOAM
which allow a decomposition of each IOAM dimension fields, thus
enabling IPFIX Flow Aggregation as described in RFC 7015 which is a
requirement to scale out for IOAM DEX and Trace Option Type. I believe
this should be performed after the working group adoption and me
should move forward quickly since IOAM is now getting implemented by
vendors and applied by operators.
While shepherding IPFIX at OPSAWG, I noticed that most discussions
where around choosing the right data type and aligning with the IPFIX
registry. Not so much about exposing the right dimensions from the
data plane.
draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry is already adopted and well
progressed at OPSAWG. I suggest that draft-spiegel-ippm-ioam-rawexport
is being adopted together with draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark. With
that we are covering both Hybrid Type options developed at IPPM.
In order to pool the IPFIX entity definitions, I believe OPSAWG would
be the best place to move with draft-spiegel-ippm-ioam-rawexport forward.
Regardless of the WG (*), I believe those two drafts should be adopted soon.
(*) OPSAWG or IPPM, it doesn't matter too much as we have the right
expert inputs anyway. I am a little concerned that OPSAWG meeting was
yesterday, so if we ask for WG adoption, it would be typically at the
next physical meeting in 4 months. IMO, waiting that long is not required
Regards, Benoit
I would appreciate feedback from IPPM and OPSAWG wherever they share
my opinion or not.
Best wishes
Thomas
_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
i...@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
