Re: [Lsr] [OPSAWG] [GROW] FW: New Version Notification for draft-gu-network-mornitoring-protol-00.txt
Hi Randy, Since BMP is promoted in GROW WG, the work has much similarity with BMP. So we applied for the presentation here. Best Regards, Robin -Original Message- From: Randy Bush [mailto:ra...@psg.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2018 2:46 AM To: Acee Lindem (acee) Cc: Lizhenbin ; g...@ietf.org; ops...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org; rt...@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] [GROW] FW: New Version Notification for draft-gu-network-mornitoring-protol-00.txt i am confused as why this is in grow. it's protocol. randy ___ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
Re: [Lsr] [GROW] FW: New Version Notification for draft-gu-network-mornitoring-protol-00.txt
Robin, Pretty much same comment as Acee - I'm not clear as to why... Protocol YANG models developed in the last years clearly provide much better and more scalable approach to what has been proposed in the draft, since we are talking is-is - look at notifications in draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg. How do you propose to corelate operational state to configuration? gRPC provides high performance RPC framework to streaming the telemetry data that is structured, easy to consume and extend. I'm not going to go into technical discussion, however would appreciate your response as to why NMP (please do not restate the points in the section 4 of the draft, they are quite incorrect) Thanks! Cheers, Jeff On 7/3/18, 09:21, "Lsr on behalf of Acee Lindem (acee)" wrote: 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" 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:opsawg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee) Sent: Monday, July 02, 2018 9:24 PM To: Guyunan (Yunan Gu, IP Technology Research Dept. NW) ; g...@ietf.org; ops...@ietf.org 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)" 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: internet-dra...@ietf.org [mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org] Sent: 2018年7月2日 20:07 To: Zhuangshunwan ; Lizhenbin ; Guyunan (Yunan Gu, IP Technology Research Dept. NW) Subject: New Version Notification for draft-gu-network-mornitoring-protol-00.txt A new version
Re: [Lsr] [OPSAWG] [GROW] FW: New Version Notification for draft-gu-network-mornitoring-protol-00.txt
i am confused as why this is in grow. it's protocol. randy ___ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
Re: [Lsr] [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" 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:opsawg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee) Sent: Monday, July 02, 2018 9:24 PM To: Guyunan (Yunan Gu, IP Technology Research Dept. NW) ; g...@ietf.org; ops...@ietf.org 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)" 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: internet-dra...@ietf.org [mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org] Sent: 2018年7月2日 20:07 To: Zhuangshunwan ; Lizhenbin ; Guyunan (Yunan Gu, IP Technology Research Dept. NW) 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
[Lsr] lsr - Requested session has been scheduled for IETF 102
Dear Acee Lindem, The session(s) that you have requested have been scheduled. Below is the scheduled session information followed by the original request. lsr Session 1 (2:30 requested) Monday, 16 July 2018, Morning Session I 0930-1200 Room Name: Van Horne size: 130 - iCalendar: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/102/sessions/lsr.ics Request Information: - Working Group Name: Link State Routing Area Name: Routing Area Session Requester: Acee Lindem Number of Sessions: 1 Length of Session(s): 2.5 Hours Number of Attendees: 70 Conflicts to Avoid: First Priority: idr rtgwg rtgarea lsvr rift spring Second Priority: bess bier netmod People who must be present: Acee Lindem Christian Hopps Alvaro Retana Resources Requested: Special Requests: - ___ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
Re: [Lsr] [GROW] FW: New Version Notification for draft-gu-network-mornitoring-protol-00.txt
Hi Acee, Thank for your attention to the new draft. Please refer to my reply inline. Best Regards, Robin -Original Message- From: OPSAWG [mailto:opsawg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee) Sent: Monday, July 02, 2018 9:24 PM To: Guyunan (Yunan Gu, IP Technology Research Dept. NW) ; g...@ietf.org; ops...@ietf.org 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)" 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: internet-dra...@ietf.org [mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org] Sent: 2018年7月2日 20:07 To: Zhuangshunwan ; Lizhenbin ; Guyunan (Yunan Gu, IP Technology Research Dept. NW) 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
