Re: [ippm] Discussion on extending TWAMP to monitor service KPIs and detect liveliness of an application
"MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acmorton@att.com> Mon, 08 June 2015 18:19 UTC
Return-Path: <acmorton@att.com>
X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A21CB1A8A8E for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Jun 2015 11:19:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.211
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 nYSkl2RGr9d5 for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Jun 2015 11:18:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pink.research.att.com (mail-pink.research.att.com [204.178.8.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B97911A8A80 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Jun 2015 11:18:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-green.research.att.com (H-135-207-255-15.research.att.com [135.207.255.15]) by mail-pink.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE6F9120E63; Mon, 8 Jun 2015 14:39:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from exchange.research.att.com (njfpsrvexg0.research.att.com [135.207.240.40]) by mail-green.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8858DE0067; Mon, 8 Jun 2015 14:18:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com ([fe80::108a:1006:9f54:fd90]) by NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com ([fe80::108a:1006:9f54:fd90%25]) with mapi; Mon, 8 Jun 2015 14:18:58 -0400
From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acmorton@att.com>
To: Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>, Srivathsa Sarangapani <srivathsas@juniper.net>
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2015 14:18:57 -0400
Thread-Topic: [ippm] Discussion on extending TWAMP to monitor service KPIs and detect liveliness of an application
Thread-Index: AdCiCJtbuXtxGx37Rqi6yMrS71S+cQADSZag
Message-ID: <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D02EB7B2B2F@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com>
References: <D19BBBC4.2DBC4%srivathsas@juniper.net> <CAA93jw7UAn1=kz4U=7ZJsgWn3YupaY5=U+f3gTFwLwVxUfjR=Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAA93jw7UAn1=kz4U=7ZJsgWn3YupaY5=U+f3gTFwLwVxUfjR=Q@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/I56tqE0BIQydKAZpIdUo75n0cBA>
Cc: "ippm@ietf.org" <ippm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [ippm] Discussion on extending TWAMP to monitor service KPIs and detect liveliness of an application
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 08 Jun 2015 18:19:01 -0000
Hi Srivathsa and Dave, At the moment, some visibility of service KPIs are intended to be measured with PDM: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-elkins-ippm-6man-pdm-option-00 (and there is/was a call for interest http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ippm/current/msg03732.html probably not too late to respond usefully on this wg call) regarding: > > Similarly they cannot figure out the liveliness of an application on a > > server even though they can figure out that the server is alive. > > Well said. liveliness as a default benchmark type would be good for just > about everything. :) By liveliness, what degree of response complexity is considered alive? Possibilities beyond ICMP Echo include: - Opens connection on well-known port - sends expected greeting message - ... - completes entire transaction within time limit regards, Al > -----Original Message----- > From: ippm [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dave Taht > Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 12:31 PM > To: Srivathsa Sarangapani > Cc: ippm@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [ippm] Discussion on extending TWAMP to monitor service > KPIs and detect liveliness of an application > > On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 9:17 AM, Srivathsa Sarangapani > <srivathsas@juniper.net> wrote: > > Dear IPPM, > > > > I would like to share something with you today. > > > > In the existing as well as next generation network architectures, > > there are lot of new services getting added in the service plane with > > in the network. services here include subscriber aware services, flow > > based traffic load balancing, content delivery servers, real time > > streaming applications and similar. The performance of these services > > are monitored using set of attributes. some of the critical attributes > > are latency introduced in the packet path, impact on network capacity > and throughput. > > some other attributes are to check whether a service node is alive or > not. > > > > To Address some of these challenges, how about extending TWAMP > > protocol (RFC 5357) to monitor service KPIs and monitor the liveliness > > of the service or application. > > I would like to see smokeping more widely used, and bandwidth presented > at the same time as loss, ECN CE, and latency in more mtrg and cacti > (and other widely used network management system) graphs. > > While I would like to see more twamp deployments, it is kind of a > headache to deploy (ntp time sensitivity for starters - that said, I > would also like to see better timekeeping across the internet also). > > > > > Today TWAMP is used to measure just RTT between 2 Network Elements, > > like routers, servers etc. > > Since Routers are no more just forwarding packets but running lot more > > services like CGNAT, DPI, IPSec, TDF and like. > > Even Servers are used to run applications like DNS, HTTP over it. > > > > Existing standard protocols cannot measure the impact of enabling > > service on packets that get routed via a router in terms of latency > > and the throughput. > > Similarly they cannot figure out the liveliness of an application on a > > server even though they can figure out that the server is alive. > > Well said. liveliness as a default benchmark type would be good for just > about everything. :) > > > With the advent of SDN and VNFs, the latency of a VNF would really > > make lot of sense for the network operator for optimal network > > planning and deployment. > > I agree that monitoring the effectiveness of these new technologies is a > goodness. > > > Based on the real time latency, the network operator can possibly > > spawn more VMs for a services VNF when required and can shut down > > some of them when not required. > > Well, more VMs does != less latency. > > > > > We therefore think that adding this new dimension to TWAMP protocol > > would really be helpful for network monitoring and analysis. > > We request you all to please share your thoughts on the same. > > > > > > > > -- > > Thanks and Regards, > > Vathsa > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ippm mailing list > > ippm@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm > > > > -- > Dave Täht > What will it take to vastly improve wifi for everyone? > https://plus.google.com/u/0/explore/makewififast > > _______________________________________________ > ippm mailing list > ippm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
- [ippm] Discussion on extending TWAMP to monitor s… Srivathsa Sarangapani
- Re: [ippm] Discussion on extending TWAMP to monit… Dave Taht
- Re: [ippm] Discussion on extending TWAMP to monit… MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
- Re: [ippm] Discussion on extending TWAMP to monit… Srivathsa Sarangapani
- Re: [ippm] Discussion on extending TWAMP to monit… Srivathsa Sarangapani
- Re: [ippm] Discussion on extending TWAMP to monit… Srivathsa Sarangapani
- Re: [ippm] Discussion on extending TWAMP to monit… Srivathsa Sarangapani
- Re: [ippm] Discussion on extending TWAMP to monit… MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
- Re: [ippm] Discussion on extending TWAMP to monit… Srivathsa Sarangapani