Re: [ippm] Review on draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-06
Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu> Tue, 03 September 2019 22:05 UTC
Return-Path: <ghanwani@gmail.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 51C0112004F; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 15:05:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 qx_KM1Memesy; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 15:05:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk1-f172.google.com (mail-vk1-f172.google.com [209.85.221.172]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 56A1F1200CE; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 15:05:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vk1-f172.google.com with SMTP id s72so2669637vkh.5; Tue, 03 Sep 2019 15:05:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=CxsJyvcQ3xpSsIes2jPg1TDrk9vHQ0hCyCFbWb4q4U4=; b=Wgx5QXpC9irEEhNLE+zzjmRIoF5gtJUuKYvOlD/FZhWdWBipiq5oSo2jCT40gfZ8t0 +W2dtrreoVSEVLLb/9ONMShkBzNtbz4Th5hTaZxXiHl2RKP4FSOZUXS1sYcV3sz7PCrI 89cHo2RA1Po73XC1/yI6b5BfFWYgHhna6EQhweeEQFIASJe3eH2IRlBpnKp6f2u23g4W +b3tAyLg6AGq99576bhYsVfOKHYy2QW2hZCzKE0dKoZCsXVlmwP7rVxCSOPTt0DSkjCm qv6Jce+ZmHm5JpCQk2y+XjVFHKp0pydQ2Pw86KG+QC/kPrKUMWzmR/bOeYyYMU3pwaIf 7gag==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW+5qFRnyxbQO+NJOJTdKyOQ5yVPgKFx2ucgweGvjUzmr+jHk7I vgE+PG+FMVX/O9Uw5XTW1vj4S29FnRRGZKQec1A=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqz7hTZ4JeX1WdIVwUCaW3D6Aj/KcfWjraLPtOMbL+wuE4yQ6Kjx7zie5re2p3vV5jD1tH5BAZC9XM7n3xDjzuE=
X-Received: by 2002:ac5:c5ba:: with SMTP id f26mr6881739vkl.32.1567548351215; Tue, 03 Sep 2019 15:05:51 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <B5A76AB5-AE39-4771-9472-38454CF52152@broadcom.com> <CAGn858RE4p8gez+b0=9PSsZQ=Y1uZANno5V7tqSo=cuqY7AJLA@mail.gmail.com> <BD32CF3D-C6F3-4CF6-A618-C41ED0C4D1CB@cisco.com> <CAGn858SLr4vix18=09gXgsN-VOspBL=qZ2-q6dWyF5b3ASgCYA@mail.gmail.com> <BYAPR11MB25845CFB28F096937486F8D7DAA50@BYAPR11MB2584.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CAGn858QOPgXb=-WgWhXETKgEw5v1soo=JsDB+LemOr7G6DKB1A@mail.gmail.com> <CA+-tSzxvTjEkjyKJsFtUDV8+PACoV+NO2odV0UbOQNUqo67LGw@mail.gmail.com> <BYAPR11MB258474DCACF2AD680202CAA2DABE0@BYAPR11MB2584.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BYAPR11MB258474DCACF2AD680202CAA2DABE0@BYAPR11MB2584.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
From: Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2019 15:05:33 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+-tSzw6fFnBOtgYVh2jdWaKUruAh00ZHERxMAEf98zhjHBq1w@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Frank Brockners (fbrockne)" <fbrockne@cisco.com>
Cc: "vijayr@arista.com" <vijayr@arista.com>, "draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data@ietf.org>, IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>, Hugh Holbrook <holbrook@arista.com>, "OU, Heidi" <heidi.ou@alibaba-inc.com>, Surendra Anubolu <surendra.anubolu@broadcom.com>, "bew.stds@gmail.com" <bew.stds@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a480660591ad4a7b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/bvGyGSUGYQsLvO5TNncBb7JGXCM>
Subject: Re: [ippm] Review on draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-06
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: Tue, 03 Sep 2019 22:05:55 -0000
Thanks Frank, this is helpful. It appears the issue is still unresolved. Anoop On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 1:20 AM Frank Brockners (fbrockne) < fbrockne@cisco.com> wrote: > Hi Anoop, > > > > WRT/ the use of GRE encap: There was an earlier discussion among authors > and interested parties which I’m attaching here. > > This discussion is also captured in the open issue #128: > https://github.com/inband-oam/ietf/issues/128 > > > > Frank > > > > *From:* Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu> > *Sent:* Samstag, 24. August 2019 00:02 > *To:* vijayr@arista.com > *Cc:* Frank Brockners (fbrockne) <fbrockne@cisco.com>; > draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data@ietf.org; IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>; Hugh > Holbrook <holbrook@arista.com>; OU, Heidi <heidi.ou@alibaba-inc.com>; > Surendra Anubolu <surendra.anubolu@broadcom.com> > *Subject:* Re: [ippm] Review on draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-06 > > > > Hi Frank, > > > > As with Vijay, I am also interested in understanding the use of GRE for > in-sequencing OAM. Do we end up needing an Ethertype for TCP/UDP? > > > > Thanks, > > Anoop > > > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 10:06 AM Vijay Rangarajan <vijayr= > 40arista.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > Hi Frank: > > Thanks, I knew I was missing something. > > So basically what you are saying is - let's say we have a UDP packet, we > are just going to stick in the GRE header and IOAM Header and Metadata > in-between the original IP and UDP headers? > > > > So, the next protocol in the IOAM Header should indicate the L4 protocol - > i.e UDP/TCP? > > Looking at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-weis-ippm-ioam-eth/, it > actually defines the "Next protocol" in the IOAM header to be an ethertype > value? > > > > Thanks, > > Vijay > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 6:22 PM Frank Brockners (fbrockne) < > fbrockne@cisco.com> wrote: > > Hi Vijay, > > > > note that you don’t necessarily need to “tunnel” – you can just use the > GRE header to sequence-in IOAM. > > > > Cheers, Frank > > > > *From:* Vijay Rangarajan <vijayr@arista.com> > *Sent:* Donnerstag, 22. August 2019 05:31 > *To:* Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) <cpignata@cisco.com > <cpignata@cisco..com>> > *Cc:* Jai Kumar <jai.kumar@broadcom.com>; > draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data@ietf.org; IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>; Frank > Brockners (fbrockne) <fbrockne@cisco.com>; Hugh Holbrook < > holbrook@arista.com>; Anoop Ghanwani <Anoop.Ghanwani@dell.com>; OU, Heidi > <heidi.ou@alibaba-inc..com <heidi.ou@alibaba-inc.com>>; Surendra Anubolu < > surendra.anubolu@broadcom.com>; John Lemon <john.lemon@broadcom.com> > *Subject:* Re: [ippm] Review on draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-06 > > > > Thanks Carlos, for pointing me to the draft. > > > > Based on my understanding of the two drafts I have the following questions > and concerns: > > 1. If I understand correctly, to deploy inband telemetry, we would > need to construct GRE tunnels coinciding with the IOAM domain? > 2. GRE typically requires configuration to provision the tunnels. > Provisioning and managing these tunnels and keeping these updated as the > network grows/shrinks could be a significant overhead. > 3. In order to get the benefit of telemetry, we are imposing a change > in forwarding protocol/topology and configuration - which, I feel is not > desirable. For example, a customer might have basic L3 routing enabled and > the expectation would be for inband telemetry to work seamlessly, without > having to revamp the network with GRE tunnels and such. This could be a > significant barrier to deployment. > 4. If sampling is used to select packets for performing IOAM encap, is > the expectation that only sampled IOAM packets go through GRE encap? Or all > data packets? > 5. Due to network nodes inserting the IOAM data, the inner L3/L4 > headers keep getting pushed deeper. I would imagine this gets challenging > for ASICs to access these fields for hashing/load balancing. > 6. Assuming only a subset of packets in a flow are subject to IOAM > (based on sampling), how do we ensure these packets take the same network > path as the rest of the packets in the flow? > > Thanks, > > Vijay > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 5:04 PM Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) < > cpignata@cisco.com> wrote: > > Hello, Vijay, > > > > Please see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-weis-ippm-ioam-eth/, > and the document this replaces. > > > > Thanks! > > Thumb typed by Carlos Pignataro. > > Excuze typofraphicak errows > > > 2019/08/21 6:35、Vijay Rangarajan <vijayr@arista.com>のメール: > > Hello all: > > Apologise if this has been previously discussed. > > In reading "draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-06", I don't see mention of GRE > encap. The draft, in fact in Sec 3, says the following - "The in-situ OAM > data field can be transported by a variety of transport protocols, > including NSH, Segment Routing, Geneve, IPv6, or IPv4. Specification > details for these different transport protocols are outside the scope of > this document." > > > > Is there another document, or a description somewhere, that talks about > how IOAM is proposed to be carried in GRE? what would be the GRE payload, > the GRE protocol type etc? > > > > Thanks, > > Vijay > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 7:52 AM Jai Kumar <jai.kumar@broadcom.com> wrote: > > Hello Frank, > > > > This is in context of our conversation at IETF105. My goal is to provide > input and improve current IOAM data draft with the learnings we had with > IFA deployment. > > This feedback is based on various customer interactions and concerns > raised by them wrt IOAM. Each feedback is a longer topic and I am starting > this thread as a summary email. This is just highlighting the issues and > not yet proposing any solution. > > > > > > Feedback 1: > > Section 4.2.1 Pre-allocated and Incremental Trace Options > > Pre-allocated and incremental trace option is 8Bytes long. This can be > easily reduced to 4Bytes. > > There is a feedback that pre-allocated option is really not needed and > either be removed or made optional. > > Given that deployments are sensitive to the IOAM overhead (specially in 5G > deployments), it’s a 50% fixed overhead savings on a per packet basis. > > > > > > Feedback 2: > Section 4.1 IOAM Namespaces > > Namespaces should be treated as templates (similar to IPFIX template > record formats). This is more flexible way of enumerating data. 64K > namespace id is a very large namespace and can be reduced to 64 IANA > specified name spaces. Separate private name space can be allowed instead > of interleaving of opaque data in the IANA allocated name space as > suggested in the current draft “opaque state snapshot”. > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7011#section-3.4 > > > > Feedback 3: > > Section 4.2.1 Pre-allocated and Incremental Trace Options > > IOAM-Trace-Type: A 24-bit identifier which specifies which data > > types are used in this node data list. > > This is the most contentious of all. In the current proposal, as new data > fields are added, there is a corresponding trace type bit need in the > header. This essentially means that all possible data fields need to be > enumerated. Given that we there are 64K names spaces allowed, I don’t see > how we can fit all possible data fields in this 24bit vector. I know there > was a suggestion of keeping last bit as an extension bit but it is still > scalable and/or easy to implement in hardware. Besides this the data fields > are not annotated/encoded with the data type, something like in IPFIX > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7011#section-6.1 > > > > Feedback 4: > > There is no version field in the data header and this will make > interoperability challenging. Standard will evolve and headers bit > definition and/or trace type will change and without version field HW will > not be able to correctly handle the IOAM data headers. > > > > Feedback 5: > > Handling of TCP/UDP traffic using GRE encap is not acceptable. Here are > some of the issues I can think of > > - GRE encaped IOAM packets will traverse a different network path then > the original packet > - Not all packets can be GRE encaped to avoid the previous problem, > due to wastage of network bandwidth (typically sampled traffic is used for > IOAM). What about native GRE traffic, will it get further encaped in > another GRE tunnel and so forth. > - IP header protocol will point to GRE IP proto and IOAM ethertype > (pending allocation by IEEE) need to be read from the GRE header to detect > an IOAM packet. This means parsing performance penalty for all regular GRE > (non IOAM) traffic. > > > > Thanks, > > -Jai > > > > _______________________________________________ > ippm mailing list > ippm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm > >
- [ippm] Review on draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-06 Jai Kumar
- Re: [ippm] Review on draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-06 Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
- Re: [ippm] Review on draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-06 Vijay Rangarajan
- Re: [ippm] Review on draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-06 Frank Brockners (fbrockne)
- Re: [ippm] Review on draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-06 Vijay Rangarajan
- Re: [ippm] Review on draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-06 OU, Heidi
- Re: [ippm] Review on draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-06 Tom Herbert
- Re: [ippm] Review on draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-06 OU, Heidi
- Re: [ippm] Review on draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-06 Tom Herbert
- Re: [ippm] Review on draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-06 Barak Gafni
- Re: [ippm] Review on draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-06 Anoop Ghanwani
- Re: [ippm] Review on draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-06 Tom Herbert
- Re: [ippm] Review on draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-06 Greg Mirsky
- Re: [ippm] Review on draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-06 Jai Kumar
- Re: [ippm] Review on draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-06 Greg Mirsky
- Re: [ippm] Review on draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-06 Tom Herbert
- Re: [ippm] Review on draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-06 Tianran Zhou
- Re: [ippm] Review on draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-06 Tianran Zhou
- Re: [ippm] Review on draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-06 Anoop Ghanwani
- Re: [ippm] Review on draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-06 Jai Kumar
- Re: [ippm] Review on draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-06 Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
- Re: [ippm] Review on draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-06 Frank Brockners (fbrockne)
- Re: [ippm] Review on draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-06 Anoop Ghanwani