[Lsr] I,Scope of FIT Capability: a node or a link?

Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Sun, 05 April 2020 02:33 UTC

Return-Path: <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 867B63A10D1; Sat, 4 Apr 2020 19:33:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 IeCnWPyavBKK; Sat, 4 Apr 2020 19:33:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22e.google.com (mail-lj1-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22e]) (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 0F9173A109A; Sat, 4 Apr 2020 19:33:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22e.google.com with SMTP id k21so10994156ljh.2; Sat, 04 Apr 2020 19:33:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=5WqffzpEiIl8T6+WnqfJrFyrCOEx51W4mO4D3jpQb6E=; b=uemCa7gw6dwz6p5JogSWJGib8RrbmxA0POVGtyx6OwoWk4UfMbC+TPxj2WYv341u7h 1Uqk20OjbNOUaPJQEcVO2OyGHFhIS+aEcRt/VtDeqN/KvHSAnMSQEq4D/STTGr7K4ryM jZ+WzmM1/UpYASPuX2B7nMUG6qROzUOd3+mdwHsV4uvnJ7q0vpmk1NwLERNTWEOkt8oI FjmLxxiKvbGoppGd6NfMvUm4aU5B6BUpeQWjAwMaBTQGZI13JUSoVyxhXMOO7mRAjP95 7Jh9SzFmqhjdBrq8PtF7LMug/0RVYHVlX/LR4/1YDPpvCKI+7N4fY+sqHYWR0r7mKSXY aGog==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=5WqffzpEiIl8T6+WnqfJrFyrCOEx51W4mO4D3jpQb6E=; b=Fj69+m5YbOhiIxkU325pS8D3UrlFXHq2bxLGp5ST0jXYFENnzZjI5F+GTpq8r+J9c+ BZsoF63SXjjVS/5v5smssR0284N/nGis8RzCk+D+ZzxW0m+7oQqeBHZD5Q0+ZJUtvdDy zh5r+rgbh7nQl78lTrpiRCVSdy6Gvz1C7m6HLJ6Ly3W+VzolnKDJR/NrPr8Fhm3lbD4w K7R2Jg9XDzO/+KIFFV+C8QV26HPVHCobky5vhJ6Ezi468Uj4VR8aXkIviYT3fWdA1Q19 7NnAxJqkNIM2pb9adkgJxoUo0j/S4GJ7Q3497TWACKSB1SQ78mjtuzV71Rtn4TmMKDHw DcmQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuYNzubygVj12SjU6fB9sTZ8pCAWXlumz5tHze6Z6iOmCMaqa83k zT88nbwjJy9Bn9BN/9B4W+CjjuGN+idZxJY+rw/YwPkJ
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypI5J4hMASM/6T0MVXhlgkDjRVSxCQAElapY9cj3OgXB7FX4mFPzxLKlomv4cObXTBBC7x9Q/w2hyeOjLvPedEU=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9105:: with SMTP id m5mr8842167ljg.37.1586053991748; Sat, 04 Apr 2020 19:33:11 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2020 19:33:01 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmXe4BrzvcZ4V_R0KtCOwKgCFMrKEmfA3OQVQdms-mjsGg@mail.gmail.com>
To: draft-wang-lsr-ifit-node-capability-advertisement@ietf.org, lsr@ietf.org, draft-song-opsawg-ifit-framework@ietf.org, opsawg@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c5d7be05a281f83d"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/LPUlYh56VPto2DhUaMqwYEWZLrE>
Subject: [Lsr] I,Scope of FIT Capability: a node or a link?
X-BeenThere: lsr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Link State Routing Working Group <lsr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsr/>
List-Post: <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2020 02:33:19 -0000

Dear All,
I've read these two drafts with interest. In light of the discussion on the
LSR WG list, I've been thinking about the scenarios where IFIT is being
used.
draft-song-opsawg-ifit-framework defines the overall IFIT architecture
that, as I understand it, applicable to different methods of collecting and
transporting telemetry
information. draft-wang-lsr-ifit-node-capability-advertisement is based on
the view that IFIT is a node-wide capability advertised as a binary flag
for each listed method of collecting telemetry information (Option-Type
enabled Flag). On-path telemetry collection is performed in the fast path,
i.e., at a link layer. But a node might include ports with different
capabilities. How such a heterogeneous, IFIT-wise, node will advertise IFIT
Capability? To better use available resources for telemetry information
collection, it might be helpful to advertise IFIT as a capability of a
link, not of a node?
What do you think?

Regards,
Greg