Re: [Int-area] WG Adoption Call: Extended Ping (Xping)

"Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com> Thu, 27 April 2017 20:32 UTC

Return-Path: <cpignata@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E15B129C03 for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 13:32:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.522
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.522 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v-0fcDAa7GnO for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 13:32:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 91AED129AF3 for <int-area@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 13:29:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3744; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1493324966; x=1494534566; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=2P7qQ82voGebtShctSuxRTCIzYUxMnYEBqrCL0i7Zd0=; b=JY3K9V0F3j1b/EtX8c9mVjv0bWfuzG7xh9mvw6B3/wRoZSYvmKbTrBKs hCRj3k2uWYUlKxFwQcak+tcLiOk13+6Ui+4/0xdq+P4ni5CL605K5XjIv I0gwBa0lfzGuKdeCR1LXtC7sirBYd/jGWBmECRH+EI/tgGqcIIdHZNl+Y w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CqAQBaUwJZ/4UNJK1cGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBg1VhgQwHg2GKGJFLlWyCDyELhXgCGoQJPxgBAgEBAQEBAQFrKIU?= =?us-ascii?q?VAQEBAQIBAQEhEToLBQsCAQgRAwECAQICJgICAiULFQgIAQEEDgWKFQgOrX2CJ?= =?us-ascii?q?osEAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBGAWBC4VJggmCb4RfF4JvLoIxBZAPhkO?= =?us-ascii?q?GfgGTC5FelCYBHziBCm8VRBIBhF4cgWN1iACBDQEBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.37,385,1488844800"; d="scan'208";a="236750489"
Received: from alln-core-11.cisco.com ([173.36.13.133]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 27 Apr 2017 20:29:25 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-017.cisco.com (xch-rtp-017.cisco.com [64.101.220.157]) by alln-core-11.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v3RKTNpl030495 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 27 Apr 2017 20:29:25 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-020.cisco.com (64.101.220.160) by XCH-RTP-017.cisco.com (64.101.220.157) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 16:29:24 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-020.cisco.com ([64.101.220.160]) by XCH-RTP-020.cisco.com ([64.101.220.160]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 16:29:24 -0400
From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>
To: "Ronald P. Bonica" <rbonica@juniper.net>
CC: "int-area@ietf.org" <int-area@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Int-area] WG Adoption Call: Extended Ping (Xping)
Thread-Index: AdK/h3CkXDSskNoHQm6/xuytoLuCZwALws2A
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 20:29:24 +0000
Message-ID: <D9709A05-773E-4C94-988E-ECC2F4A8E60E@cisco.com>
References: <SN1PR0501MB2062BA61AB91B87FD56B910AAE100@SN1PR0501MB2062.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <SN1PR0501MB2062BA61AB91B87FD56B910AAE100@SN1PR0501MB2062.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.82.251.5]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <0B7AC2F6D117C24EB9B721731439290A@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/KEpqsVvfAcXkOKqfnDL0NTRc-6c>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] WG Adoption Call: Extended Ping (Xping)
X-BeenThere: int-area@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Internet Area Mailing List <int-area.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/int-area/>
List-Post: <mailto:int-area@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 20:32:44 -0000

Hi, Ron,

Anytime!

“Extended Ping” is the name for the interactive version of the ping utility. A search engine seems to find a bunch of others (it is a natural extension for a name :-)

This particular utility seems to have less commonality to `ping` than to an atomic query for remote operational state. For example, in a topology like A-----IPv4_only_net-----B, where B has an IPv6 interface. If xping is sent as an ICMPv4, querying for an IPv6 interface, will it return “Up” even though there is no IP connectivity to that interface?

If so, that’s less a probe and more a get_interface_state.

That could otherwise be two different reports, one for path connectivity and the other for interface state, without agglutinating them or mixing AFs.

I must say though that I actually really like the salutation-themed naming. Konnichiwa is perhaps too long… Yo? Hey? Too informal… :-) It is a sort-of AYU (Are You Up?)

— Carlos.

> On Apr 27, 2017, at 2:52 PM, Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> wrote:
> 
> Hi Carlos,
> 
> Thanks for the review. 
> 
> Regarding comment 1), I agree completely.
> 
> I didn't know that there were any other utilities called "Extended Ping". Could you send me a pointer.
> 
> I never liked the name XPING, anyway.  Can you suggest a better name?  Maybe "probe"?
> 
> The following also come to mind:
> 
> - ahoy
> - hola
> - ciao 
> 
> But maybe they are too cute?
> 
>                                  Ron
> 
> 
>> 
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 01:24:23 +0000
>> From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>
>> To: Wassim Haddad <wassim.haddad@ericsson.com>
>> Cc: "int-area@ietf.org" <int-area@ietf.org>rg>, "intarea-chairs@ietf.org"
>> 	<intarea-chairs@ietf.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Int-area] WG Adoption Call: Extended Ping (Xping)
>> Message-ID: <1DEBF891-EA30-4989-8C24-139F6FEDA7AC@cisco.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> This document aims at addressing a real operational problem, describing a
>> very useful approach.
>> 
>> I support its adoption by Int-area.
>> 
>> That said, three comments:
>> 
>>  1.  Given the generally applicable tool it describes, an ?Implementation
>> Status? Section [RFC 7942] ought to be included.
>>  2.  The name ?extended ping? and short name ?xping? are currently used
>> by other tools and methods. Is this *the* extended ping? Or a different
>> name?
>>  3.  I send a few comments on the next detail-level to the authors directly.
>> 
>> Thanks!
>> 
>> ? Carlos.
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Int-area mailing list
> Int-area@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area