Re: [ippm] Questions about rfc8321(bis)
Giuseppe Fioccola <giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com> Wed, 02 November 2022 15:05 UTC
Return-Path: <giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.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 E17D0C14CF11 for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Nov 2022 08:05:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.908
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.908 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2EtOueVBNzvA for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Nov 2022 08:05:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 02D32C14CF09 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Nov 2022 08:05:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fraeml708-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.207]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4N2VTG2jNpz67tVr; Wed, 2 Nov 2022 23:01:22 +0800 (CST)
Received: from fraeml714-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.33) by fraeml708-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2375.31; Wed, 2 Nov 2022 16:05:18 +0100
Received: from fraeml714-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.206.15.33]) by fraeml714-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.206.15.33]) with mapi id 15.01.2375.031; Wed, 2 Nov 2022 16:05:18 +0100
From: Giuseppe Fioccola <giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com>
To: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>, "ippm@ietf.org" <ippm@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [ippm] Questions about rfc8321(bis)
Thread-Index: AQHY5w8gbG2xpQHJxESzNNJBeYB1Oq4rw5mQ
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2022 15:05:18 +0000
Message-ID: <47b9122625d64d19b087be48ed1b9e83@huawei.com>
References: <Y1WKr5yTNCv36gm2@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
In-Reply-To: <Y1WKr5yTNCv36gm2@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.81.219.211]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/loofll92A1nqAbIjeSxRKSiPPxU>
Subject: Re: [ippm] Questions about rfc8321(bis)
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 02 Nov 2022 15:05:25 -0000
Hi Toerless, Regarding the concrete examples, the Alternate Marking methodologies are all implemented at different stages by vendors (e.g. Huawei, Cisco, ZTE, Broadcom...) and deployed by operators (Telecom Italia, China Mobile, China Unicom...). >From what I know, the number of monitored flows depends on the resources available on the device and the marking interval can be chosen small enough according to the synchronization. Let's discuss it further offline. There are drafts on PCEP and BGP extensions and on the YANG model, but it is missing the IPFIX extension. Regards, Giuseppe -----Original Message----- From: ippm <ippm-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Toerless Eckert Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2022 8:41 PM To: ippm@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] Questions about rfc8321(bis) Where would i find concrete deployment example data of what can be done today and/or is known to be planned for implementations re. the marking intervals. E.g.: recommended smallest working interval for observation of a particularr number of flows, e.g.: small (100) vs. large (50,000) - and with what export mechanism (protocol) to a correlating orchestrator/controller ? E.g.: there is data showing that a pair of routers could measure 10,000 flows with an interval of 1 seconds and export via IPfix don't even know if there is already a spec for alternate marking in IPfix though, just comes to mind as the old expert protocol i can think of. Thanks! Toerless _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
- [ippm] Questions about rfc8321(bis) Toerless Eckert
- Re: [ippm] Questions about rfc8321(bis) Giuseppe Fioccola