Re: [ippm] next steps with IPPM registry

["Weil, Jason" <[e-mail]>]

Marcelo,

I was talking with Al after the IPPM meeting in Yokohama about the need to
consider how IP version number may impact the metric registry and initial
registry entries. Barring the fact that we still need to update RFC2330
for IPv6, I believe we may need to tweak the IPPM registry to account for
the differences between the IPv6 and IPv4 Headers. This seems to be
primarily an issue for the Fixed Parameter values. The Run-time Parameters
descriptions currently include support for both IPv4 and IPv6 values, but
this too may need to change depending on how fixed the Fixed values need
to be.

For example, Section 4 in draft-morton-ippm-initial-registry-01.txt
describes the registry entry for the UDP Round-trip Latency metric.
Subsection 4.2.2 describes the Fixed Parameters for the metric part of
which is the following Type-P parameters:

o  IPv4 header values:

  *  DSCP: set to 0

  *  TTL: set to 255

  *  Protocol: Set to 17 (UDP)

The DNS Response Latency Registry Entry (Section 6.2.2) has a similar
issue:

   Type-P:

   o  IPv4 header values:

  *  DSCP: set to 0

  *  TTL set to 255

  *  Protocol: Set to 17 (UDP)


So if we go down this path we will end up with two metric entries, 1 for
IPv4 and one for IPv6 with separate Fixed parameters depending on the IP
version number. If we do this I think we should also add the IP version
number into the metric name as well to help distinguish the metric entries
in the registry.

I guess another option would be to include both the IPv4 header and IPv6
header in the Fixed Parameters fields but that would seem to increase the
logic needed by the system reading the metric which may hinder or at least
impact agent interoperability.

-Jason


On 12/1/15, 12:39 AM, "ippm on behalf of marcelo bagnulo braun"
<[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>I understand that the only remaining open issue with the registry is to
>figure out if/how we want to include machine readable information in it.
>
>In order to figure this out, i understand the idea was for proponents of
>doing so should explain the use cases they have in mind, so we can
>understand if we want to do this and now.
>
>I understand Barbara and Juergen were proposing this, so could you (or
>anyone else who thinks this is a good idea) to explain the use cases?
>
>Thanks, marcelo
>
>_______________________________________________
>ippm mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm


________________________________

This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.