Re: [ippm] Section 6 - draft-fz-ippm-alt-mark-deployment-01 Thu, 26 October 2023 15:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BA3CC151084; Thu, 26 Oct 2023 08:12:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.904
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.904 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=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_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8VqF3q9sxQ70; Thu, 26 Oct 2023 08:12:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D1C9DC151063; Thu, 26 Oct 2023 08:12:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by; Thu, 26 Oct 2023 17:11:59 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"; boundary="----=_Part_722512_1394938128.1698333119050"
X-Mailer: Totemo_TrustMail_(Notification)
Thread-Topic: Section 6 - draft-fz-ippm-alt-mark-deployment-01
Thread-Index: AdnvorM7OAaThpJqSiCXHe8g9y5AaANefEUQAsBrg9A=
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2023 15:11:56 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US, de-CH
Content-Language: en-US
msip_labels: MSIP_Label_2e1fccfb-80ca-4fe1-a574-1516544edb53_ActionId=d53cffbf-c50d-4bec-a475-7313d7ae73e9; MSIP_Label_2e1fccfb-80ca-4fe1-a574-1516544edb53_ContentBits=0; MSIP_Label_2e1fccfb-80ca-4fe1-a574-1516544edb53_Enabled=true; MSIP_Label_2e1fccfb-80ca-4fe1-a574-1516544edb53_Method=Standard; MSIP_Label_2e1fccfb-80ca-4fe1-a574-1516544edb53_Name=C2 Internal; MSIP_Label_2e1fccfb-80ca-4fe1-a574-1516544edb53_SetDate=2023-10-26T15:08:48Z; MSIP_Label_2e1fccfb-80ca-4fe1-a574-1516544edb53_SiteId=364e5b87-c1c7-420d-9bee-c35d19b557a1; MSIP_Label_d6986fb0-3baa-42d2-89d5-89f9b25e6ac9_ActionId=ca415982-9dca-40f0-a851-f19a7ac6b143; MSIP_Label_d6986fb0-3baa-42d2-89d5-89f9b25e6ac9_ContentBits=2; MSIP_Label_d6986fb0-3baa-42d2-89d5-89f9b25e6ac9_Enabled=true; MSIP_Label_d6986fb0-3baa-42d2-89d5-89f9b25e6ac9_Method=Standard; MSIP_Label_d6986fb0-3baa-42d2-89d5-89f9b25e6ac9_Name=Uso Interno; MSIP_Label_d6986fb0-3baa-42d2-89d5-89f9b25e6ac9_SetDate=2023-10-12T15:22:15Z; MSIP_Label_d6986fb0-3baa-42d2-89d5-89f9b25e6ac9_SiteId=6815f468-021c-48f2-a6b2-d65c8e979dfb;
x-originating-ip: []
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Trustmail: processed
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [ippm] Section 6 - draft-fz-ippm-alt-mark-deployment-01
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2023 15:12:08 -0000

Dear Massimo,

My apology for late reply. Both your comments are very valid. packetDeltaCount(IE2) can be also used for loss measurement. As well flowEndSeconds(IE151), flowEndMilliseconds(IE153),flowEndMicroseconds(IE155) or flowEndNanoseconds(IE157) for delay measurement. Both has been added in the -01 revision of the document.

Best wishes

From: Nilo Massimo <>
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2023 5:22 PM
To: Graf Thomas, INI-NET-VNC-HCS <>;;
Subject: RE: Section 6 - draft-fz-ippm-alt-mark-deployment-01

Hi Thomas,
thank you for your feedback.
I have a couple of comments.
In section 6.1 for IPFIX, in order to calculate loss you said to use for packets the entity octetDeltaCount(IE1). But might it be better to use the entity packetDeltaCount(IE2)?

Moreover I suggest for the delay to add the use of existing entities flowEndSeconds, flowEndMilliseconds, flowEndMicroseconds, flowEndNanoseconds.

Best Regards,


Gruppo TIM - Uso Interno - Tutti i diritti riservati.
From: ippm <<>> On Behalf Of<>
Sent: lunedì 25 settembre 2023 13:23
Subject: [EXT] [ippm] Section 6 - draft-fz-ippm-alt-mark-deployment-01

Dear draft-fz-ippm-alt-mark-deployment authors, Dear IPPM working group,

First of all I think draft-fz-ippm-alt-mark-deployment is a valuable document describing the deployment of Alternat Marking.

I have reviewed the Network Telemetry aspect described in Section 6 and wrote a proposal for -01 as following:

The new section describes how the export could be performed with existing IPFIX entities where decomposition is performed at the data collection and what needs to be consider for new IPFIX entities. I also described the publication with YANG push and what needs to be considered in terms of subscription, data publication and modeling.

Here the current diff:

I hope this makes sense and is helpful for the community. Feedback and comments welcome.

Best wishes


Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua distruzione, Grazie.

This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privileged information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying, printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and any attachments and advise the sender by return e-mail, Thanks.

Rispetta l'ambiente. Non stampare questa mail se non è necessario.