[ippm] AD review: draft-ietf-ippm-storetraceroutes-03
Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com> Tue, 13 March 2007 16:09 UTC
Return-path: <ippm-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HR9Yf-0007kV-P3; Tue, 13 Mar 2007 12:09:05 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HR9Yd-0007k1-VJ for ippm@ietf.org; Tue, 13 Mar 2007 12:09:03 -0400
Received: from smtp.nokia.com ([131.228.20.173] helo=mgw-ext14.nokia.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HR9Yc-0004rJ-Ru for ippm@ietf.org; Tue, 13 Mar 2007 12:09:03 -0400
Received: from esebh107.NOE.Nokia.com (esebh107.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.143.143]) by mgw-ext14.nokia.com (Switch-3.2.5/Switch-3.2.5) with ESMTP id l2DG8bhv023546 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Mar 2007 18:09:00 +0200
Received: from esebh104.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.143.34]) by esebh107.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 13 Mar 2007 18:08:42 +0200
Received: from esebh101.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.177]) by esebh104.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 13 Mar 2007 18:08:41 +0200
Received: from mgw-int02.ntc.nokia.com ([172.21.143.97]) by esebh101.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 13 Mar 2007 18:08:40 +0200
Received: from [172.21.35.139] (esdhcp035139.research.nokia.com [172.21.35.139]) by mgw-int02.ntc.nokia.com (Switch-3.2.5/Switch-3.2.5) with ESMTP id l2DG8dYT010047 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Mar 2007 18:08:39 +0200
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3)
In-Reply-To: <45F6545C.8060507@ripe.net>
References: <45F6545C.8060507@ripe.net>
Message-Id: <7B853912-640E-4604-8C07-639DED7AA762@nokia.com>
From: Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 18:08:37 +0200
To: IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Mar 2007 16:08:40.0911 (UTC) FILETIME=[DDC775F0:01C76589]
X-eXpurgate-Category: 1/0
X-eXpurgate-ID: 149371::070313180900-5B5D6BB0-09182039/0-0/0-1
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 07d4bcb4600b627a0786c2557bc62e06
Cc:
Subject: [ippm] AD review: draft-ietf-ippm-storetraceroutes-03
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group <ippm.ietf.org >
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org ?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@ietf.org >
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org ?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org ?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0945916664=="
Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org
Summary: Not ready. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- MAJOR ISSUES: Section 2., paragraph 0: > 2. Definition of Traceroute This section needs to become more formal in describing how traceroute operates and needs to define some precise terminology, which the rest of the document should then refer to and be based on. Currently, the document uses various terms in different places, and it is unclear what they mean. Examples: traceroute probe, running traceroute, traceroute measurements, packets traceroute sends out, traceroute command, traceroute operation, traceroute test, traceroute request, etc. Section 2.1., paragraph 1: > In order to define an information model for storing traceroutes, we > first investigated which configuration parameters are relevant when > running traceroute. The remainder of this section doesn't discuss at all which configuration parameters are relevant; it only lists some defaults on various platforms. At best, it illustrates that the defaults vary widely. This should go into an appendix (if anywhere), and the missing discussion should be added. Section 4., paragraph 4: > It might happen that some probes do not receive a response within the > configured time-out (for instance if the probe is filtered out by a > firewall). In this case, an "*" is displayed in place of the RTT. I think I remember that some implementations print the same line multiple times when a router decreases the TTL by more than one, and thus look like multiple hops. How does that impact the info model? Section 7., paragraph 0: > 7. XML Schema for traceroute Measurements XML doesn't validate. Make sure annotation text is identical to Section 5 info model description text. Section 1., paragraph 0: > 1. Registration request for the IPPM traceroute measurements > namespace > * URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:traceroute-1.0 > * Registrant Contact: TBD. Registrant Contact needs to be specified. Section 2., paragraph 0: > 2. Registration request for the IPPM traceroute measurements schema > * URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:traceroute-1.0 > * Registrant Contact: TBD. Registrant Contact needs to be specified. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENTS: Section 1., paragraph 2: > The > standard metrics defined by IPPM working group in matter of delay, > connectivity and losses do not apply to the metrics returned by the > traceroute tool; therefore, in order to compare results of traceroute > measurements, the solution is to add to the stored results a > specification of the operating system and version for the tool used. Adding this meta-data still doesn't make traceroute results comparable to the other IPPM metrics, so it's not a "solution". Section 1., paragraph 3: > These are > the motivations that moved the authors to write this draft in the > context of the IPPM working group even if other working groups (like > DISMAN) have already addressed similar issues related to the > definition of the MIB for configuring and retrieving traceroute > measurements results. Author motivation is superfluous. Section 2., paragraph 1: > Traceroute can therefore be used to > discover where and how a host is connected to the Internet and can be > usefully employed to troubleshoot network connections. "Where a host is connected to the Internet" and especially "how a host is connected to the Internet" is inaccurate. What traceroute gives you is some information (hop count, delays) about the path between yourself and other hosts, i.e, the information depends on the initiator of the traceroute. Section 3.1., paragraph 0: > 3.1. Accuracy of Results Misleading title. Section is not about whether the results are accurate, it's about whether they are comparable between different traceroute versions and the IPPM metrics. Section 3.1., paragraph 1: > A known inconsistency exists between the round-trip delay metric > defined by the IPPM working group and the results returned by the > current traceroute implementations. Unfortunately, it is unlikely > that the traceroute implementations will implement the standard > definition in the near future. In order to compare results of > different traceroute measurements, specifications both of the > operating system (name and version) and of the traceroute tool > version used are added to the metadata elements in order to help in > comparing metrics. How does that meta-information help comparing? It seems that all it may let you do is avoid comparing results taken under different configurations. Section 3.1., paragraph 2: > Moreover, the traceroute has built-in > configurable mechanisms like time-outs and can experience problems > related to the crossing of firewalls; therefore some of the packets > that traceroute sends out end up being time-out or filtered. As a > consequence, it might not be possible to trace the path to a node or > there might not be a complete set of probes describing the RTT to > reach it. How is that reflected in the info model? Section 3.2., paragraph 0: > 3.2. Alternative traceroute Implementations This section seems to belong logically to the content discussed at the end of Section 2, where traceroute flavors are discussed. Suggest to move it there. Section 3.2., paragraph 4: > traceroutes is outside the scope of this draft, therefore in the > sequel, we will restrict our focus to the most commonly implemented > UDP based traceroute. But the info model in Section 5 apparently covers TCP-based traceroutes? Section 5.1., paragraph 4: > o Unsigned32 - The type "Unsigned32" represents a value in the range > (0..4294967295). Various objects below are more accurately described by Unsigned16 or Unsigned8 types. Section 5.2.1.1., paragraph 1: > o description - Specifies the type of host address used in the > traceroute command. s/host/destination/ (the destination may be a router - check term throughout the document) Section 5.2.1.4., paragraph 1: > o description - Specifies the size of the data portion of a > traceroute operation in octets. inaccurate - s/data portion/probe payload/ Section 5.2.1.5., paragraph 1: > o description - Specifies the time-out value, in seconds, for the > traceroute operation. Unclear what this timeout controls. One probe? The entire probing procedure? Section 8., paragraph 0: > 8. Differences to DISMAN-TRACEROUTE-MIB Tangential to the core of the document. Suggest to make this an appendix. Section 11.2., paragraph 8: > [RFC2579] McCloghrie, K., Ed., Perkins, D., Ed., and J. > Schoenwaelder, Ed., "Textual Conventions for SMIv2", > STD 58, RFC 2579, April 1999. Needs to become normative (data types being imported). Section 11.2., paragraph 9: > [RFC2863] McCloghrie, K. and F. Kastenholz, "The Interfaces Group > MIB", RFC 2863, June 2000. Needs to become normative (data types being imported). Section 11.2., paragraph 14: > [RFC4560] Quittek, J. and K. White, "Definitions of Managed Objects > for Remote Ping, Traceroute, and Lookup Operations", > RFC 4560, June 2006. Needs to become normative (data types being imported). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- NITS: INTRODUCTION, paragraph 13: > To better address the traceroute measurements storing issue, the > authors first of all give a definition of the traceroute tool, Nit: s/the authors/this document/ (other uses of first person elsewhere in the document) Section 1., paragraph 1: > Since traceroute > is a tool that has built-in configurable mechanisms like time-outs > and can experience problems related to the crossing of firewalls thus > experiencing fake losses or incomplete delay information. Nit: incomplete sentence Section 2., paragraph 2: > Typically, traceroute attemps to discover the path to a destination Nit: s/attemps/attempts/ Section 2.1., paragraph 2: > (SunOS 5.9) implemetations are based on UDP datagrams, while the Nit: s/implemetations/implementations/ Section 2.1., paragraph 4: > | FreeBSD| -n |simbolically. | - | Nit: s/|simbolically./|symbolically./ Section 2.1., paragraph 5: > | LINUX | - |As optional last paramater, | Depends | Nit: s/paramater,/parameter,/ Section 3.2., paragraph 1: > As stated above, the widespred use of firewalls might prevent UDP or Nit: s/widespred/widespread/ Section 3.2., paragraph 2: > for connections on. TCP based implementations use TCP SYN or FYN Nit: s/FYN/FIN/ Section 3.2., paragraph 3: > are not known in adavance. A detailed analysis of TCP based Nit: s/adavance./advance./ Section 4., paragraph 1: > at the correponding host and that the option to display only Nit: s/correponding/corresponding/ Section 4., paragraph 2: > numerical addresses was not set; Nit: "Symbolic address" - I assume what is meant is domain name? Section 4., paragraph 5: > (f.i. UNIX and LINUX) while WINDOWS tracert reports "< 1 ms". Nit: What does "f.i." stand for? Section 5.1., paragraph 2: > also accomodates other Unicode multibyte characters. Nit: s/accomodates/accommodates/ Nit: s/multibyte/multi-byte/ Section 5.1., paragraph 3: > o TruthValue - The type "TruthValue" represents a boolean value. Nit: s/boolean/Boolean/ Section 5.1., paragraph 5: > the need to use a milli-second resolution instead a deci-second Nit: s/milli-second/millisecond/ Nit: s/deci-second/decisecond/ Section 5.2.1.3., paragraph 0: > 5.2.1.3. CtlByPassRouteTable Nit: s/CtlByPassRouteTable/CtlBypassRouteTable/g Section 5.2.1.4., paragraph 2: > this object was computed by substracting the smallest possible IP Nit: s/substracting/subtracting/ Section 5.2.1.4., paragraph 3: > o units - octects Nit: s/octects/octets/ Section 5.2.1.12., paragraph 0: > o description - Specifies the inferface index used in the traceroute Nit: s/inferface/interface/ Section 6., paragraph 3: > disadvantages. Textual representions are (with some limitations) Nit: s/representions/representations/ Section 6., paragraph 7: > other data formats. Its disadvantages is the resource comsumption Nit: s/comsumption/consumption/ Section 6., paragraph 8: > maintenance is not expected to be extremly high, the inefficient Nit: s/extremly/extremely/ Section 6., paragraph 10: > Global Grid Forum (GGF) is also using this approach Nit: Global Grid Forum (GGF) has renamed itself to Open Grid Forum (OGF) Section 6., paragraph 11: > it was designed in a way that both limits the unecessary redundancy Nit: s/unecessary/unnecessary/ Section 6., paragraph 12: > and a simple one-to-one trasformation between the two exist. Nit: s/trasformation/transformation/ Section 7., paragraph 18: > substracting the smallest possible IP header size of 20 Nit: s/substracting/subtracting/ Section 7., paragraph 19: > jumbograms). Units are: octects. Nit: s/octects./octets./ Section 7., paragraph 26: > <xs:documentation>Specifies the inferface index used in the Nit: s/inferface/interface/ Section 7., paragraph 48: > object means that source addres specification was disabled. Nit: s/addres/address/ Section 8., paragraph 2: > o configuring traceroute operations to be prformed, Nit: s/prformed,/performed,/ Section 8., paragraph 6: > and delection, status retrieval) that are not required for the XML- Nit: s/delection,/deletion,/ Section 8.1., paragraph 2: > traceRoute prefix that was removed to avoid unecessary redundancy in Nit: s/unecessary/unnecessary/ Section 8.2., paragraph 2: > For the traceroute strorage format, a value of 0 for element Nit: s/strorage/storage/ Section 8.2., paragraph 4: > This was translated to the traceroute strorage format, such that a Nit: s/strorage/storage/ Section 9.2., paragraph 1: > Traceroute results are not considered highly sensible. Still, they Nit: s/sensible/sensitive/ :-) (also elsewhere) Section 11.2., paragraph 1: > [I-D.ietf-disman-remops-mib-v2] > Quittek, J. and K. White, "Definitions of Managed Objects > for Remote Ping, Traceroute, and Lookup Operations", > draft-ietf-disman-remops-mib-v2-09 (work in progress), > February 2006. Nit: Unused Reference: 'I-D.ietf-disman-remops-mib-v2' is defined, but not referenced. Also, draft-ietf-disman-remops-mib-v2 has been published as RFC 4560.
_______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
- [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-storetraceroutes-… Henk Uijterwaal
- [ippm] AD review: draft-ietf-ippm-storetraceroute… Lars Eggert
- Re: [ippm] AD review: draft-ietf-ippm-storetracer… Henk Uijterwaal
- Re: [ippm] AD review: draft-ietf-ippm-storetracer… Lars Eggert
- Re: [ippm] AD review: draft-ietf-ippm-storetracer… Henk Uijterwaal
- Re: [ippm] AD review: draft-ietf-ippm-storetracer… Lars Eggert
- Re: [ippm] AD review: draft-ietf-ippm-storetracer… Lars Eggert
- Re: [ippm] AD review: draft-ietf-ippm-storetracer… Henk Uijterwaal
- Re: [ippm] AD review: draft-ietf-ippm-storetracer… Lars Eggert
- Re: [ippm] AD review: draft-ietf-ippm-storetracer… Henk Uijterwaal
- Re: [ippm] AD review: draft-ietf-ippm-storetracer… Lars Eggert
- Re: [ippm] AD review: draft-ietf-ippm-storetracer… Jeff W. Boote
- Re: [ippm] AD review: draft-ietf-ippm-storetracer… Henk Uijterwaal
- [ippm] comment on http://tools.ietf.org/html/draf… STEPHAN Emile RD-CORE-LAN
- [ippm] Re: comment on http://tools.ietf.org/html/… Henk Uijterwaal
- [ippm] Re: comment on http://tools.ietf.org/html/… Al Morton
- [ippm] need of sync of clocks in dup metric def STEPHAN Emile RD-CORE-LAN
- Re: [ippm] need of sync of clocks in dup metric d… Jeff W. Boote
- Re: [ippm] need of sync of clocks in dup metric d… Al Morton
- Re: [ippm] need of sync of clocks in dup metric d… Henk Uijterwaal
- RE: [ippm] need of sync of clocks in dup metric d… STEPHAN Emile RD-CORE-LAN
- [ippm] Re: need of sync of clocks in dup metric d… Henk Uijterwaal
- Re: [ippm] Re: need of sync of clocks in dup metr… Al Morton
- Re: [ippm] Re: need of sync of clocks in dup metr… Henk Uijterwaal
- RE: [ippm] AD review: draft-ietf-ippm-storetracer… Saverio Niccolini
- Re: [ippm] AD review: draft-ietf-ippm-storetracer… Lars Eggert
- Re: [ippm] AD review: draft-ietf-ippm-storetracer… Henk Uijterwaal
- RE: [ippm] AD review: draft-ietf-ippm-storetracer… Saverio Niccolini
- Re: [ippm] AD review: draft-ietf-ippm-storetracer… Lars Eggert
- RE: [ippm] AD review: draft-ietf-ippm-storetracer… Saverio Niccolini
- Re: [ippm] AD review: draft-ietf-ippm-storetracer… Lars Eggert
- RE: [ippm] AD review: draft-ietf-ippm-storetracer… Saverio Niccolini
- RE: [ippm] AD review: draft-ietf-ippm-storetracer… Saverio Niccolini
- Re: [ippm] AD review: draft-ietf-ippm-storetracer… Henk Uijterwaal