[lmap] draft-ietf-lmap-framework-08: AD review - part 1
Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Sun, 09 November 2014 07:43 UTC
Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: lmap@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lmap@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F36301A1A13 for <lmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 Nov 2014 23:43:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -12.394
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.394 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.594, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 5F5t3BwdV0Ur for <lmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 Nov 2014 23:43:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1914D1A1A10 for <lmap@ietf.org>; Sat, 8 Nov 2014 23:43:06 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=28396; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1415518986; x=1416728586; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to; bh=V+fga4nkBwRG3yd7wwUyV//4QQV1kNpuSXWVCIERERM=; b=V0/4IDRbQ7S0tv3OjB/4VXjmLMYn62G64oSR5XqAIVmNAihektSd/l04 KXiwIgMj0y5M4IrDJnSQntRLOdAoKJ/9KxfIPP5RPBiBE+0F0yiZ8PiZY Uoiq1v8zVPFYfhU08vnYXiPFli9hgQ/Ssx7XBy288TCtK9nJlXpeFQUU4 k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AiQFAN8ZX1StJV2T/2dsb2JhbABbgw5UWQHCIolHh00CgRMWAQEBAQF9hAMBAQQaDUsGARAsFg8JAwIBAgFFBgEJAwEHAQGIPQ3MewEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAReRFQeESwWGOolUhnZXgXCEWoE0PYYJhzOHM4QeGTCCSgEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,345,1413244800"; d="scan'208,217";a="370628210"
Received: from rcdn-core-11.cisco.com ([173.37.93.147]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 Nov 2014 07:43:04 +0000
Received: from [10.21.92.188] (sjc-vpn5-1212.cisco.com [10.21.92.188]) by rcdn-core-11.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id sA97h3a9009427; Sun, 9 Nov 2014 07:43:03 GMT
Message-ID: <545F1B06.1090204@cisco.com>
Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2014 21:43:02 -1000
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "lmap@ietf.org" <lmap@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-lmap-framework@tools.ietf.org
References: <5451EFD9.1080702@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <5451EFD9.1080702@cisco.com>
X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <5451EFD9.1080702@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------070907050202010102050600"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lmap/gcrXhVldEOZxxwie3NU8tc10T-g
Cc: Paul Aitken <pjaitken@gmail.com>, Aamer Akhter <aakhter@gmail.com>
Subject: [lmap] draft-ietf-lmap-framework-08: AD review - part 1
X-BeenThere: lmap@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Large Scale Measurement of Access network Performance <lmap.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lmap>, <mailto:lmap-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lmap/>
List-Post: <mailto:lmap@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lmap-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lmap>, <mailto:lmap-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2014 07:43:11 -0000
Dear all, Here is my AD review. Note: I haven't reviewed yet the section 7 "security considerations" and section 8 "privacy considerations", but thought I should anyway send this before the meeting this week. Note2: if some points were discussed already, don't hesitate to let me know. A first impression is that there are some repetitions in the draft. It seems like some sections, written by different persons, were glued together. Reading this draft again with a fresh mind would highlight this. One important issue, which I mentioned already during the interim meeting: the lack of passive monitoring aspects in the draft. Section 2 The MA may generate Measurement Traffic and measure some metric associated with its transfer, or the MA may observe existing traffic, or there may be some kind of hybrid of these two possibilities. So the document speaks a little bit about active and passive monitoring. Good, because this is mentioned in the charter: Both active and passive measurements are in scope, although there may be differences in their applicability to specific use cases, or in the security measures needed according to the threats specific to each measurement category. LMAP will not standardize performance metrics. I recall the charter discussion. I specifically asked: "do you want to have passive monitoring in the charter? Do you understand all the consequences (for example, traffic filters, for observed packet/flow, which may imply RFC6728)?". Both answers were "yes". So, the draft clearly misses the passive monitoring aspects, starting with the primary figure in this framework, figure 1, which only covers the active monitoring Some other issues, simply listed in order - These devices could be software based agents on PCs, embedded agents in consumer devices (e.g. Blu-ray players), Does a blu-ray player need a broadband test? - o Diversity - a measurement system should handle different types of Measurement Agents - for example Measurement Agents may come from different vendors, be in wired and wireless networks, be able to execute different sorts of Measurement Task and be on devices with IPv4 or IPv6 addresses. Is "different types" the right term? You have introduced the term "capabilities" - It is also useful to define a registry for commonly-used Metrics [I-D.manyfolks-ippm-metric-registry <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lmap-framework-08#ref-I-D.manyfolks-ippm-metric-registry>] so that a Metric with its associated Measurement Method can be referred to simply by its identifier in the registry. The new draft is http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry - OLD: Finally we introduce several components that are outside the scope of initial LMAP work and will be provided through existing protocols or applications. NEW: Finally we introduce several components that are outside the scope of initial LMAP work (see in figure 1 "out of scope" and will be provided through existing protocols or applications. Then I would list four bullet points for the next paragraph. Otherwise it's not obvious which components you speak about - figure 1 * Since the above mentions the Results repository (The data analysis tools receive the results from the Collector or via the Results repository. ), the figure should replace repository by Results repository * "IPPM scope" is wrong (see my first remark) * Mention the Control Protocol and Report Protocol, or Control Channel/Report Channel. Note: if you replace Instruction by Control Protocol, then the arrow must be bidirectional (according to the Control Protocol definition) - Control Channel: A Channel between a Controller and a MA over which Instruction Messages and Capabilities, Failure and Logging Information are sent. Control Protocol: The protocol delivering Instruction(s) from a Controller to a Measurement Agent. It also delivers Capabilities, Failure and Logging Information from the Measurement Agent to the Controller. It can also be used to update the MA's Configuration. Do you want to mention that the Control Protocol runs on the Control Channel? - Measurement Method: The process for assessing the value of a Metric; the process of measuring some performance or reliability parameter associated with the transfer of traffic; where this process involves multiple MAs or MPs, each may perform different roles. I don't understand what "where this process involves multiple MAs or MPs, each may perform different roles." adds to the def. - Report Channel: A Channel between a Collector and a MA over which Report messages are sent. Report messages -> Report Messages - 4.2 An operator may have several Controllers, perhaps with a Controller for different types of MA (home gateways, tablets) or location (Ipswich, Edinburgh). BT specific, maybe? :-) - Section 5. Here is yet another example of repetition (see the last 3 bullets below. Why do you have to repeat what the Control Protocol does) An LMAP system goes through the following phases: o a Bootstrapping process before the MA can take part in the other three phases o a Control Protocol, which delivers Instruction Messages from a Controller to a MA, detailing what Measurement Tasks the MA should perform and when, and how it should report the Measurement Results. It also delivers Capabilities, Failure and logging Information from a MA to its Controller. Finally, it allows the Controller to update the MA's Configuration. o the actual Measurement Tasks, which measure some performance or reliability parameter(s) associated with the transfer of packets. The LMAP work does not define Metrics and Measurement Methods, these are defined elsewhere (e.g. IPPM). o a Report Protocol, which delivers Reports from a MA to a Collector. The Report contains the Measurement Results. - Would be nice to have "measurement system" in the terminology section. It's mentioned so many times in the draft - 5.2. Control Protocol The primary purpose of the Control Protocol is to allow the Controller to configure a Measurement Agent with an Instruction about what Measurement Tasks to do, when to do them, and how to report the Measurement Results (Section 5.2.2). The Measurement Agent then acts on the Instruction autonomously. The Control Protocol also enables the MA to inform the Controller about its Capabilities and any Failure and Logging Information (Section 5.2.2). Finally, the Control Protocol allows the Controller to update the MA's Configuration. Another example of repetition. From the terminology: Control Protocol: The protocol delivering Instruction(s) from a Controller to a Measurement Agent. It also delivers Capabilities, Failure and Logging Information from the Measurement Agent to the Controller. It can also be used to update the MA's Configuration. - section 5.2.2 Instruction: -> [(Measurement Task configuration( [Input Parameter], (interface), (Cycle-ID))), (Report Channel), (Schedule), (Suppression information)] <- Response(details) It seems from the above that "Measurement Task configuration" takes 3 arguments. I'm surprised not to see the Metric (which is described in the section btw) above. According to the Input Parameter def., I understand that the Metric is NOT part of the Input Parameter. - 5.2.2.1. Suppression The Instruction may include Suppression information. The purpose of Suppression is to enable the Controller to instruct the MA not to perform Measurement Tasks. It is used if the measurement system wants to eliminate inessential traffic, because there is some unexpected network issue for example. Again, "eliminate inessential traffic". This is an active probing only view. Same remark with o a set of Measurement Schedules to suppress; the others are not suppressed. For example, suppose the measurement system has defined two Schedules, one with the most critical Measurement Tasks and the other with less critical ones that create a lot of Measurement Traffic, then it may only want to suppress the second. - 5.3.1. Starting and Stopping Measurement Tasks That's typical section completely dedicated to active probing: _Before sending Measurement Traffic_ the MA may run a pre-check. (The pre-check could be defined as a separate, preceding Task or as the first part of a larger Task.) Action could include: o_the MA checking that there is no cross-traffic_. In other words, a check that the end-user isn't already sending traffic; For passive monitoring, you typically want to check that there is traffic of interest... - 5.4.1. Reporting of Subscriber's service parameters The charter says: Service parameters, such as product category, can be useful to decide which measurements to run and how to interpret the results. These parameters are already gathered and stored by existing operations systems. Discovering the service parameters on the MAs or sharing the service parameters between MAs are out of the scope. However, if the service parameters are available to the MAs, they could be reported with the measurement results in the Report Protocol. The key sentence is: "if the service parameters are available to the MAs" I don't find back this concept in section 5.4.1 - section 5.5 It is also possible that a different choice is made for the Control and Report Protocols, for example NETCONF-YANG and IPFIX (Internet Protocol Flow Information Export) respectively. Missing references - For example, there could be different Controllers for different types of MA (home gateways, tablets) or locations (Ipswich, Edinburgh), for load balancing or to cope with failure of one Controller. Another example of repetition. - section 6.1 The measurement system also needs to consider carefully how to interpret missing Results; for example, if the missing Results are ignored and the lack of a Report is caused by its broadband being broken, then the estimate of overall performance, averaged across all MAs, would be too optimistic. The correct interpretation may depend on the specifics of the Measurement Task and Measurement Schedule. What do you mean by "missing Results"? Missing from a measurement or reporting point of view? And if it relates to measurement, it's completely different from a passive monitoring or active probing point of view. - Appendix A: One more example that there is some repetition, why do you need this: The LMAP framework defines two types of components involved in the actual measurement task, namely the Measurement Agent (MA) and the Measurement Peer (MP). The fundamental difference conveyed in the definition of these terms is that the MA has a interface with the Controller/Collector while the MP does not. The MP is broadly defined as a function that assists the MA in the Measurement Task but has no interface with the Controller/Collector. There are many elements in the network that can fall into this broad definition of MP. We believe that the MP terminology is useful to allow us to refer an element of the network that plays a role that is conceptually important to understand and describe the measurement task being performed. We next illustrate these concepts by describing several deployment scenarios. - Appendix Figure 2. OLD: +----------------+ OWAMP +----------------+ ^ | OWAMP |<--control--->| MP: | | | control-client |>test-traffic>| OWAMP server & | IPPM NEW: +----------------+ OWAMP +----------------+ ^ | OWAMP |<--control--->| MP: | | | control-client |-test-traffic>| OWAMP server & | IPPM - Appendix: figure A4 +-----+ +----------------+ +------+ ^ | MP | | MA: Monitor | | MP | IPPM | |<--|----------------|---traffic--->| | Scope +-----+ | | +------+ | .......|................|.........................v........... You mentioned in relation to this figure "Next, we consider Measurement Methods that measure user traffic." So "IPPM scope" is wrong. This might be IPFIX/PSAMP - Appendix: figure A4 I don't understand this sentence: if packets are not forwarded, the measurement task will not work. - Also, related to the previous comment. What about a remote span to the probe? Is this in scope or not? Regards, Benoit
- [lmap] draft-ietf-lmap-framework-08: AD review - … Benoit Claise
- Re: [lmap] draft-ietf-lmap-framework-08: AD revie… Benoit Claise
- Re: [lmap] draft-ietf-lmap-framework-08: AD revie… Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
- Re: [lmap] draft-ietf-lmap-framework-08: AD revie… Scott Weeks
- Re: [lmap] draft-ietf-lmap-framework-08: AD revie… philip.eardley
- Re: [lmap] draft-ietf-lmap-framework-08: AD revie… Juergen Schoenwaelder