Re: [Ioam] Internal WG Review: In-situ OAM (ioam)

[Ram Krishnan <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mirja,

Fair points. Still wondering how my draft missed the BoF page - I will get
it added through the BoF coordinators.

Thanks,
Ramki

On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Ram,
>
> to me the current charter seem to not include monitoring of network
> functions. Also your draft is currently not listed as related on the BoF
> page. I had a very brief look at this now and I don’t think that Data-plane
> probe for in-band telemetry collection (draft-lapukhov-dataplane-probe)
> and Network Service Header KPI Stamping (draft-browne-sfc-nsh-kpi-stamp),
> which are both listed as use cases, can or should be treated the same. As
> Joel notes below SFC is a specific use case and probably requires very
> different expertise. I don’t think throwing everything the same working
> group is the right approach here.
>
> Mirja
>
>
> > Am 10.02.2017 um 20:47 schrieb Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>:
> >
> > Well, indeed.
> >
> > This is why I was scratching away at whether this is a proposal for a
> generic
> > OAM encapsulation.
> >
> > AFAICS the devil is in the detail of the encapsulation/forwarding/
> switching
> > mechanism and a lot of the information that has to be encoded will be
> different.
> > So, will this proposal lead to more than a set of TLVs that would be
> filled out
> > for different use cases?
> >
> > It *might* be that it would be more useful to identify the target us
> cases (i..,
> > those that people want to build and deploy now) and work on those.
> >
> > Adrian
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Ioam [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern
> >> Sent: 10 February 2017 19:34
> >> To: Ram Krishnan; Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)
> >> Cc: Carlos Pignataro (cpignata); Frank Brockners (fbrockne); The IAB;
> >> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Alvaro Retana (aretana); Spencer Dawkins
> at IETF
> >> Subject: Re: [Ioam] Internal WG Review: In-situ OAM (ioam)
> >>
> >> I would be very careful about using this proposal as a justification for
> >> an iOAM working group.
> >> it is SFC specific.
> >> And there are some interesting challenges in the details.
> >>
> >> Yours,
> >> Joel
> >>
> >> On 2/10/17 12:09 PM, Ram Krishnan wrote:
> >>> Very good discussion.
> >>>
> >>> Another aspect to note is that we see value for in-situ OAM for
> >>> monitoring network functions (especially virtual) besides network
> >>> interconnects. This is captured in Section 3 in the draft
> >>> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-krishnan-opsawg-in-band-pro-
> >> sla/?include_text=1).
> >>>
> >>> I believe IPPM charter addresses only network monitoring.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Ramki
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 7:11 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)
> >>> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>    Hi Frank, hi all,
> >>>
> >>>    please see in-line.
> >>>
> >>>> Am 10.02.2017 um 14:38 schrieb Frank Brockners (fbrockne)
> >>>    <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Mirja,
> >>>>
> >>>> you raise an interesting point. The IPPM charter states  "
> >>>    Specifying network or lower layer OAM mechanisms is out of scope of
> >>>    the IPPM charter.", whereas the WG has " Submit a draft on the IPv6
> >>>    Performance and Diagnostic Metrics (PDM) Destination Option as
> >>>    Proposed Standard
> >>>> draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option" as a milestone. I'd assume that
> >>>    we'd likely qualify IPv6 as a transport protocol.
> >>>
> >>>    If you also cite the sentence before this, this might become
> clearer:
> >>>
> >>>    "The IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Working Group develops and
> maintains
> >>>    standard metrics that can be applied to the quality, performance,
> and
> >>>    reliability of Internet data delivery services and applications
> running
> >>>    over transport layer protocols (e.g. TCP, UDP) over IP. Specifying
> >>>    network
> >>>    or lower layer OAM mechanisms is out of scope of the IPPM charter."
> >>>
> >>>    It's focused on performance measurements of data delivery services
> >>>    and application, not metric sthat are specific to network operation
> >>>    e.g. up-time of a router (as an example that just came to my mind).
> >>>
> >>>    So to me the scope and the goals of IPPM and IOAM are overlapping
> >>>    currently as for me "real-time telemetry of individual data packets
> >>>    and flows" is exactly what IPPM is doing.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> So far I understood the main focus of the new IOAM WG to be
> >>>    network-layer focused, i.e. piggyback OAM-meta-data onto
> >>>    network-layer protocols - but that does not necessarily need to be
> >>>    always the case as you implicitly highlight by drawing the link to
> >>>    IPPM. One could also do so using e.g. TCP options. I did not read
> >>>    the statement on IPPM in the draft charter as "not cooperating with
> >>>    IPPM" - I read it in a way that methods that do not piggyback
> >>>    information on live traffic are not considered in IOAM. That said,
> >>>    especially when it comes to export and interpretation of in-situ OAM
> >>>    data, there might indeed be common ground between IOAM and IPPM.
> >>>
> >>>    My point is not that there needs to be cooperation. My point is that
> >>>    we already have a working group that is mostly charter to do what
> >>>    you want to do.
> >>>
> >>>    Mirja
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> How about we add another sentence to the charter that underlines
> >>>    the fact that IOAM would actively seek cooperation with other
> >>>    related efforts? We could add something like:
> >>>>
> >>>> "The IOAM WG seeks cooperation with other appropriate standards
> >>>    bodies and forums to promote consistent approaches, as well as
> >>>    definition and interpretation of in-situ OAM data."
> >>>>
> >>>> This would naturally capture IETF WGs like IPPM - but also efforts
> >>>    like INT in P4, hence we'd even cast the net a little wider.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thoughts?
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks, Frank
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Ioam [mailto:[e-mail]
> >>>    <mailto:[e-mail]>] On Behalf Of Mirja Kuehlewind
> (IETF)
> >>>> Sent: Freitag, 10. Februar 2017 13:10
> >>>> To: Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) <[e-mail]
> >>>    <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Alvaro Retana (aretana)
> >>>    <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> >>>> Cc: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>; The IAB <[e-mail]
> >>>    <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Spencer Dawkins at IETF
> >>>    <[e-mail]
> >>>    <mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]
> >>>    <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >>>> Subject: Re: [Ioam] Internal WG Review: In-situ OAM (ioam)
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi all,
> >>>>
> >>>> also one more comment on this point:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Am 09.02.2017 um 18:18 schrieb Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
> >>>    <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> Is there any connection with IPPM?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yes, there is, as already mentioned above.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The charter currently says:
> >>>>
> >>>> "Other ongoing OAM-related efforts in working groups(s) such as
> >>>    MPLS and IPPM that do not piggyback information onto the live user
> >>>    data traffic are out of scope of the IOAM WG."
> >>>>
> >>>> which indictates that cooperation with IPPM is not planned.
> >>>>
> >>>> To me in general the relation between this work and other ongoing
> >>>    work in the IETF is not very clear and IPPM has several documents
> >>>    and milestones that are in scope for this work:
> >>>>
> >>>> - Submit a draft on the IPv6 Performance and Diagnostic Metrics
> >>>    (PDM) Destination Option as Proposed Standard:
> >>>    draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option (this draft is mainly done and
> >>>    silenter the publication process soon to my understanding)
> >>>>
> >>>> - Submit an Experimental draft on coloring-based hybrid
> >>>    measurement methodologies for loss and delay to the IESG:
> >>>    draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-03
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't think that the assessment in the charter that IPPM's scope
> >>>    does not include piggybacked information is correct. Looking at
> >>>    draft-brockners-inband-oam-transport-02, I think that any work on
> >>>    IPV6 and IPv6 in this scope should be done in IPPM because that's
> >>>    were this work is already on-going and where the measurement
> >>>    expertise is.
> >>>>
> >>>> Mirja
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Ioam mailing list
> >>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ioam
> >>>    <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ioam>
> >>>
> >>>    _______________________________________________
> >>>    Ioam mailing list
> >>>    [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >>>    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ioam
> >>>    <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ioam>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Ramki
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Ioam mailing list
> >>> [e-mail]
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ioam
> >>>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Ioam mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ioam
> >
>
>


-- 
Thanks,
Ramki