[ippm] Review on draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-06

Jai Kumar <jai.kumar@broadcom.com> Wed, 21 August 2019 02:22 UTC

Return-Path: <jai.kumar@broadcom.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 B0672120144 for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 19:22:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=broadcom.com
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 1m3MH6eSA5mV for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 19:22:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pl1-x62b.google.com (mail-pl1-x62b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62b]) (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 D5D93120143 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 19:22:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pl1-x62b.google.com with SMTP id h3so446317pls.7 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 19:22:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=broadcom.com; s=google; h=user-agent:date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id:thread-topic :mime-version; bh=MPwNJ1CMni63wern+yRiTEygP3c+nWnOcYz23aoojWg=; b=fGSQn+h4vm3ceL02OH40WjheK68C4eGio934Wlq6A1yQjH5T0IOyscBhdM0+tfmsTm f8gJagBWGEYQHsGkd1TX56L/Qf70THC68qZR2pVrTKG3rnIQ871ZLVr1Bi2j+UDsi4kg eA0wtdJ6ea1BKAPDxKmQ1Wunk1SGJCsDp7x6g=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:user-agent:date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id :thread-topic:mime-version; bh=MPwNJ1CMni63wern+yRiTEygP3c+nWnOcYz23aoojWg=; b=S4qUg9WcG6qgOlFkLGqJ8b0moFIwaRRfm7Ahrzzl9u9ak+m4LyMnw8UsGEGfKdXeos Mt9OmC4POaQcVB24xrN7mJdU+Z3oFInX7elVpfhvzlJ6uAVqNrTFy6ze1KBCDCuwHAQ3 LnHewvrp3pfPRqjqRTggIXBF90ry3hEUhbpH0S/Nt8H6o2ryjWMGCJWIfRxDVcstnfES 3bfabgt3kgLElqHeGInQxvRa6qKVWp/MZgAM8VLVnVDQdUb636ZTannKYk4nsb+rSUX0 P+k50DFpK9J9nMhU6BeqGmzMwwgyrOi2dFKBRChjhGkJBoYBayNoSJyygXuX5pqfE6ju wRtQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWNZH69TvaZ8GjBM9Vg/sroo7Mwdi4mi5jDk3BBHiYbbGsli+Yd BOOjVBoKNdcNTQSQ65GUHXUnPw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxBNHQs0k4m++xY4+DblqDyukHXswm6itunx+gbmq24FVRJFXbSNMoYUTXFBJkVQYRkqBt3nA==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:b193:: with SMTP id s19mr21064224plr.16.1566354138402; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 19:22:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.0.131] ([2601:641:c080:5dc3:5c53:c933:2f64:ae9a]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a3sm21613547pfc.70.2019.08.20.19.22.17 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 20 Aug 2019 19:22:17 -0700 (PDT)
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.1c.0.190812
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2019 19:22:16 -0700
From: Jai Kumar <jai.kumar@broadcom.com>
To: <draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data@ietf.org>, IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>, "Frank Brockners (fbrockne)" <fbrockne@cisco.com>
CC: Vijay Rangarajan <vijayr@arista.com>, Hugh Holbrook <holbrook@arista.com>, Anoop Ghanwani <Anoop.Ghanwani@dell.com>, "OU, Heidi" <heidi.ou@alibaba-inc.com>, Surendra Anubolu <surendra.anubolu@broadcom.com>, John Lemon <john.lemon@broadcom.com>
Message-ID: <B5A76AB5-AE39-4771-9472-38454CF52152@broadcom.com>
Thread-Topic: [ippm] Review on draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-06
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3649173737_1668757442"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/xObOmAiXLBEGwtJU_eABWOlsYII>
Subject: [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: Wed, 21 Aug 2019 02:22:22 -0000

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