Re: [ippm] IOAM Direct Exporting Open Issue
"MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acm@research.att.com> Wed, 14 October 2020 13:54 UTC
Return-Path: <acm@research.att.com>
X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31EA43A0D9C; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 06:54:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 d1YlDXf8syTC; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 06:54:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.149.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 006AC3A0D99; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 06:54:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0048589.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0048589.ppops.net-00191d01. (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 09EDqKCH002800; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 09:53:58 -0400
Received: from tlpd255.enaf.dadc.sbc.com (sbcsmtp3.sbc.com [144.160.112.28]) by m0048589.ppops.net-00191d01. with ESMTP id 345y03bm05-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 14 Oct 2020 09:53:57 -0400
Received: from enaf.dadc.sbc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tlpd255.enaf.dadc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id 09EDrs84126811; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 08:53:56 -0500
Received: from zlp30499.vci.att.com (zlp30499.vci.att.com [135.46.181.149]) by tlpd255.enaf.dadc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id 09EDroa5126706 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 14 Oct 2020 08:53:50 -0500
Received: from zlp30499.vci.att.com (zlp30499.vci.att.com [127.0.0.1]) by zlp30499.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id 4A24E4068F82; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 13:53:50 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from clph811.sldc.sbc.com (unknown [135.41.107.12]) by zlp30499.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id 028614068F83; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 13:53:49 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from sldc.sbc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clph811.sldc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id 09EDrnpf079125; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 08:53:49 -0500
Received: from mail-azure.research.att.com (mail-azure.research.att.com [135.207.255.18]) by clph811.sldc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id 09EDrf43077758; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 08:53:41 -0500
Received: from exchange.research.att.com (njmtcas1.research.att.com [135.207.255.86]) by mail-azure.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE87D10A19BD; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 09:53:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from njmtexg5.research.att.com ([fe80::b09c:ff13:4487:78b6]) by njmtcas1.research.att.com ([fe80::e881:676b:51b6:905d%12]) with mapi id 14.03.0487.000; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 09:53:39 -0400
From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acm@research.att.com>
To: Barak Gafni <gbarak@nvidia.com>, "Frank Brockners (fbrockne)" <fbrockne@cisco.com>, Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com>, Haoyu Song <haoyu.song@futurewei.com>
CC: IPPM Chairs <ippm-chairs@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export@ietf.org>, "IETF IPPM WG (ippm@ietf.org)" <ippm@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: IOAM Direct Exporting Open Issue
Thread-Index: AQHWi/Gd8KW1sQVySE+kGhpmOqIw3qlri0IAgBkLnMCAABEOgIAAFayAgBIPGgCAAE6/gIAALWVg
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2020 13:53:38 +0000
Message-ID: <4D7F4AD313D3FC43A053B309F97543CF014294422C@njmtexg5.research.att.com>
References: <DM6PR13MB2762A3C2024A7CE1F4025F809A310@DM6PR13MB2762.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <4941A7B7-7147-48C6-8A05-1D1572DFACA2@apple.com> <BYAPR11MB2584BB076D44E8F8B2D0C405DA050@BYAPR11MB2584.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <BYAPR12MB3446F6AB70078C4F0DC652DEB4050@BYAPR12MB3446.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BYAPR12MB3446F6AB70078C4F0DC652DEB4050@BYAPR12MB3446.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [24.148.42.167]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.235, 18.0.687 definitions=2020-10-14_08:2020-10-14, 2020-10-14 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 bulkscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 mlxscore=0 malwarescore=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 clxscore=1011 priorityscore=1501 impostorscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2009150000 definitions=main-2010140098
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/274TL-qCb4f607ybQaSxE7F8kVQ>
Subject: Re: [ippm] IOAM Direct Exporting Open Issue
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group <ippm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ippm/>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2020 13:54:04 -0000
Hi Barak, please see below, Al > -----Original Message----- > From: ippm [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Barak Gafni > Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 3:04 AM > To: Frank Brockners (fbrockne) <fbrockne@cisco.com>; Tommy Pauly > <tpauly@apple.com>; Haoyu Song <haoyu.song@futurewei.com> > Cc: IPPM Chairs <ippm-chairs@ietf.org>; draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct- > export@ietf.org; IETF IPPM WG (ippm@ietf.org) <ippm@ietf.org> > Subject: Re: [ippm] IOAM Direct Exporting Open Issue > > +1 > My view is that if there is a need to discuss what a hop count is [acm] Do the https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-route-10 definitions help with this? that was our part of our goal with this draft (now in RFCEditor queue). Al - the > scope is the data draft where it has been defined, rather than DEX. Would > you agree? > > Thanks, > Barak > > -----Original Message----- > From: Frank Brockners (fbrockne) <fbrockne@cisco.com> > Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2020 11:33 PM > To: Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com>; Haoyu Song <haoyu.song@futurewei.com> > Cc: Tal Mizrahi <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com>; IPPM Chairs <ippm- > chairs@ietf.org>; draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export@ietf.org; IETF IPPM > WG (ippm@ietf.org) <ippm@ietf.org> > Subject: RE: IOAM Direct Exporting Open Issue > > External email: Use caution opening links or attachments > > > Cc'ing IPPM WG. > > IMHO it makes sense to tackle the question of how IOAM applies to L2 > networks as a separate topic. > > Cheers, Frank > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com> > > Sent: Freitag, 2. Oktober 2020 20:35 > > To: Haoyu Song <haoyu.song@futurewei.com> > > Cc: Frank Brockners (fbrockne) <fbrockne@cisco.com>; Tal Mizrahi > > <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com>; IPPM Chairs <ippm-chairs@ietf.org>; > > draft-ietf- ippm-ioam-direct-export@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: IOAM Direct Exporting Open Issue > > > > If there are scenarios where the hop limit/TTL is not available, could > > those not have a separate mechanism to define a hop limit? This DEX > > alone could remain simple and without duplication for the L3 case, but > > not preventing combining with another mechanism for L2? > > > > Tommy > > > > > On Oct 2, 2020, at 10:17 AM, Haoyu Song <haoyu.song@futurewei.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi Frank and Tommy, > > > > > > It's also clear that "Hop_count" is not semantically identical to > > > "Hop_lim" (or > > TTL) as specified in IOAM data. The most critical question is: what if > > Hop_lim is not available at all (e.g., in L2 networks)? Then how can > > we get such information? We need to add explanations in the draft how > > to handle such a possibility, and how to get and interpret Hop_lim, if > it exists. > > > > > > Best regards, > > > Haoyu > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Frank Brockners (fbrockne) <fbrockne@cisco.com> > > > Sent: Friday, October 2, 2020 9:31 AM > > > To: Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com>; Tal Mizrahi > > > <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com> > > > Cc: IPPM Chairs <ippm-chairs@ietf.org>; > > > draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export@ietf.org > > > Subject: RE: IOAM Direct Exporting Open Issue > > > > > > Hi Tommy, > > > > > > as we all agree, one guiding principle in standards is to avoid > > > reimplementation > > of an already available functionality. This principle helps > > implementors and avoid a proliferation of different options to > > implement the same functionality. IMHO we're presented with such a case > here. > > > > > > DEX was originally designed to avoid recording/updating the IOAM > > > related > > metadata in the packet as the packet traverses the network, but > > instead have every transited node create and immediately export the OAM > data of interest. > > Let's call this "Vanilla DEX". > > > > > > If we add "hop count recording", we create a "Hybrid DEX" mode, in > > > that we > > record and update a hop-count field in the packet *and* have every > > transited node create and immediately export the OAM data of interest. > > The hop-count recording in this "Hybrid DEX" mode would just be a > > re-implementation of a capability which we already have if we combine > > "Vanilla DEX" with "IOAM tracing". > > draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export-01 kind of states this in section 7 > > - but IMHO we should make it really clear that we're talking about a re- > implementation of an already existing capability. > > > > > > Maybe this context could help us to come to a conclusion on this > topic. > > > > > > Cheers, Frank > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com> > > >> Sent: Mittwoch, 16. September 2020 19:48 > > >> To: Tal Mizrahi <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com> > > >> Cc: IPPM Chairs <ippm-chairs@ietf.org>; > > >> draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct- export@ietf.org > > >> Subject: Re: IOAM Direct Exporting Open Issue > > >> > > >> Hi Tal, > > >> > > >> We may need to take some time on our upcoming IETF 109 agenda to > > >> dedicate to resolving this if we can’t get it done before then. > > >> > > >> To get a sense from the authors, for either option, is there > > >> someone who can’t live with that outcome? I can see the trade offs > > >> either way, and I do think we should prescribe only one method. The > > >> text lists the pros and cons—how do they weigh against one another? > > >> > > >> Tommy > > >> > > >>> On Sep 15, 2020, at 11:21 PM, Tal Mizrahi > > >>> <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com> > > >> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Dear Chairs, > > >>> > > >>> There were no responses to this email, probably since everyone who > > >>> had comments about this open issue has already commented in the > past. > > >>> At this point we would like your help with proceeding to resolve > this issue. > > >>> > > >>> Thanks, > > >>> Tal. > > >>> > > >>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- > > >>> From: Tal Mizrahi <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com> > > >>> Date: Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 8:52 AM > > >>> Subject: IOAM Direct Exporting Open Issue > > >>> To: IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Hi, > > >>> > > >>> There is an open issue in the DEX draft about whether to include > > >>> an explicit Hop Count field in the DEX header, or to rely on the > > >>> existing Hop_Lim/Node_ID data field. > > >>> > > >>> Section 7 of the draft presents the pros and cons of each of these > > >>> alternatives. This issue has also been discussed on the mailing > > >>> list a couple of times, and on the last few IPPM meetings. > > >>> > > >>> We would like to encourage non-authors to express their opinion > > >>> about which approach should be taken: (1) use an explicit Hop > > >>> Count field, or (2) rely on the existing Hop_Lim/Node_ID data field. > > >>> > > >>> Cheers, > > >>> Tal. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Here is a link to the draft: > > >>> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com > /?url=https*3A*2F*2F__;JSUl!!BhdT!xwFSlaNT6BBqgAJ2EE9N7ants16G3QEoa14kb- > FKtmSU6-TwblMb8NKl6bf_$ > > >>> da > > >>> tatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export%2F&a > > >>> mp > > >>> > > ;data=02%7C01%7Chaoyu.song%40futurewei.com%7C2f840fbff5b34808bb3f08 > > d > > >>> > > 866f0c247%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C6373725315 > > 361 > > >>> > > 39070&sdata=zOeIUtzXzqkyb5D9pdc1UgUP%2Bnpjc0aB0AHU0Df8Y1E%3D > > & > > >>> ;reserved=0 > > >>> > > >>> Section 7 of the draft, which presents the two alternatives is > > >>> quoted here for convenience. > > >>> > > >>> Hop Limit / Hop Count: in order to help correlate and order the > > >>> exported packets, it is possible to include a 1-octet Hop Count > > >>> field in the DEX header (presumably by claiming some space from > > >>> the Flags field). Its value starts from 0 at the encapsulating > > >>> node and is incremented by each IOAM transit node that supports > > >>> the DEX option. The Hop Count field value is also included in > the > > >>> exported packet. An alternative approach is to use the Hop_Lim/ > > >>> Node_ID data field; if the IOAM-Trace-Type > > >>> [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data] has the Hop_Lim/Node_ID bit set, then > > >>> exported packets include the Hop_Lim/Node_ID data field, which > > >>> contains the TTL/Hop Limit value from a lower layer protocol. > The > > >>> main advantage of the Hop_Lim/Node_ID approach is that it > provides > > >>> information about the current hop count without requiring each > > >>> transit node to modify the DEX option, thus simplifying the data > > >>> plane functionality of Direct Exporting. The main advantage of > > >>> the Hop Count approach is that it counts the number of IOAM- > > >>> capable nodes without relying on the lower layer TTL, especially > > >>> when the lower layer cannot prvide the accurate TTL information, > > >>> e.g., Layer 2 Ethernet or hierarchical VPN. It also explicitly > > >>> allows to detect a case where an IOAM-capable node fails to > export > > >>> packets. In order to facilitate the Hop Count approach it is > > >>> possible to use a flag to indicate an optional Hop Count field, > > >>> which enables to control the tradeoff. On one hand it addresses > > >>> the use cases that the Hop_Lim/Node_ID cannot cover, and on the > > >>> other hand it does not require transit switches to update the > > >>> option if it is not supported or disabled. Further discussion > is > > >>> required about the tradeoff between the two alternatives. > _______________________________________________ > ippm mailing list > ippm@ietf.org > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm__;! > !BhdT!xwFSlaNT6BBqgAJ2EE9N7ants16G3QEoa14kb-FKtmSU6-TwblMb8P58kzmL$
- [ippm] IOAM Direct Exporting Open Issue Tal Mizrahi
- Re: [ippm] IOAM Direct Exporting Open Issue Frank Brockners (fbrockne)
- Re: [ippm] IOAM Direct Exporting Open Issue Barak Gafni
- Re: [ippm] IOAM Direct Exporting Open Issue MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
- Re: [ippm] IOAM Direct Exporting Open Issue Haoyu Song
- Re: [ippm] IOAM Direct Exporting Open Issue Haoyu Song
- Re: [ippm] IOAM Direct Exporting Open Issue Tommy Pauly
- Re: [ippm] IOAM Direct Exporting Open Issue Barak Gafni
- Re: [ippm] IOAM Direct Exporting Open Issue Barak Gafni
- Re: [ippm] IOAM Direct Exporting Open Issue Tal Mizrahi
- Re: [ippm] IOAM Direct Exporting Open Issue Tommy Pauly
- Re: [ippm] IOAM Direct Exporting Open Issue Haoyu Song
- Re: [ippm] IOAM Direct Exporting Open Issue Tal Mizrahi
- Re: [ippm] IOAM Direct Exporting Open Issue Frank Brockners (fbrockne)
- Re: [ippm] IOAM Direct Exporting Open Issue Haoyu Song