Re: [lmap] Feedback on draft-eardley-lmap-terminology

Phil,

I've been reviewing the drafts, and these are all points I planned to raise.

Inline:

> Ok, this should be mentioned in the Use case doc as well as in the 
> framework.
>
> incidentally, although the measurement functionality would be in lots 
> of MAs I wouldn't expect them all to run all the tests at the same 
> time -- for the regular tests, I think you'd use a subset as a panel, 
> and over the course of a few weeks say the panel would rotate round 
> the different end hosts
>

What I read so far seems to focus on the singular test case, whereas in 
reality there may be many MAs performing the same test, even at the same 
time.

> I agree that the measurement functionality has the potential to be 
> abused as a DDOS attack and we need mechanisms to alleviate it.
>

+1. Similar the reporting infra, if 1,000's of MAs are told to send 
reports to www.bt.com.

> Perhaps too early for specific proposals, but I'd suggest a 
> combination of:
>
> -Security on the Control Protocol (to stop rogue controller asking MAs 
> to launch a DDoS)
>

+1.

> -Some individual tests to include an initial phase where they check 
> that the Measurement Peer has capacity (especially for tests that 
> create a significant load on the Measurement Peer)
>

That might not be possible, eg if the test is a DNS lookup or web page 
retrieval, the peer may have no knowledge that it's involved in an LMAP 
measurement.

> -Ability for Controller to send a "suppress" msg -- so lots of MAs can 
> be told to stop sending test pkts, if there's some problem
>

Also to stop sending reports. This needs to be similarly secure so a 
rogue controller can't suppress sections of the LMAP network.

> -Perhaps some guidance on best practice (don't kill bt.com -- try 
> cisco.com instead!!)
>

:-)

P.

> *From:*Benoit Claise [mailto:bclaise@cisco.com]
> *Sent:* 24 July 2013 09:32
> *To:* Eardley,PL,Philip,TUB8 R
> *Cc:* lmap@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [lmap] Feedback on draft-eardley-lmap-terminology
>
> Phil,
>
> **
>
> *<<*I'm not too clear if the Measurement Peer are dedicated test 
> server, or real server (google.com, SIP server, youtube)>>
>
> *The Measurement Peer could be either. It's up to the operator of the 
> measurement system to decide what Measurement Methods the Measurement 
> Peer needs and exactly how they're implemented.*
>
> Sure, but what if I point all my 100.000 MAs to constantly ping 
> http://home.bt.com/news-01363796671918. Not sure if BT will be happy.
> I could take a different example with DNS, NTP, CDN, ...
> That might be a point for an applicability section somewhere.
>
> Regards, Benoit
>
> **
>
> Thanks
>
> phil
>
> *From:*lmap-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:lmap-bounces@ietf.org> 
> [mailto:lmap-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Benoit Claise
> *Sent:* 22 July 2013 17:12
> *To:* lmap@ietf.org <mailto:lmap@ietf.org>
> *Subject:* [lmap] Feedback on draft-eardley-lmap-terminology
>
> Dear authors,
>
> A couple of high level points.
> One of the goal behind this email is to generate discussions, either 
> on the list, or during the IETF meeting next week.
>
> -
>
>     The consensus is that the LMAP working group should assume that a
>     Measurement Agent receives Instruction from only a single Controller
>     at any point in time (however it may Report to more than one
>     Collector).
>
> Instead of consensus, I would use "a key assumption"
> The charter says:
>
> A key assumption constraining the initial work is that the measurement 
> system is under the control of a single organization (for example, an 
> Internet Service Provider or a regulator).
>
> -
> Same remark for the term "consensus" in
>
>     The job of a Bootstrap Protocol is to provide an automated way to
>     associate a Measurement Agent to its Controller, including
>     authentication credentials.  Similarly, there should be a way to pull
>     the plug on rogue Measurement Agents.  The current consensus on the
>     LMAP mailing list is that the working group should define the
>     bootstrap process but not a protocol.
>
> The charter mentions:
>
> "The management protocol to bootstrap the MAs in measurement devices 
> is out of scope of the LMAP charter."
>
> -
> I would like to draw your attention to 
> claise-ippm-perf-metric-registry 
> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-claise-ippm-perf-metric-registry>, 
> which will be presented in IPPM.
>
> -
> I'm not too clear if the Measurement Peer are dedicated test server, 
> or real server (google.com, SIP server, youtube)
> Do the Measurement Peer need the functionality of an IP SLA responder 
> or a TWAMP controller?
> This might be clarified in the use case draft.
>
> -
> This draft is good shape, but it's really a mix of terminology and 
> framework concepts.
> I'm glad that there is a single delivery in the charter for both:
> "1. The LMAP Framework - provides common terminology, basic 
> architecture elements, and justifies the simplifying constraints"
>
>
> Regards, Benoit
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> lmap mailing list
> lmap@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lmap