Re: [Lsr] [GROW] FW: New Version Notification for draft-gu-network-mornitoring-protol-00.txt

Lizhenbin <lizhenbin@huawei.com> Tue, 03 July 2018 10:39 UTC

Return-Path: <lizhenbin@huawei.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 914C3130E34; Tue, 3 Jul 2018 03:39:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
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 vBF4JQ1beWAe; Tue, 3 Jul 2018 03:39:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C9A9130E4A; Tue, 3 Jul 2018 03:39:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml709-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 7C604695BAD8F; Tue, 3 Jul 2018 11:39:48 +0100 (IST)
Received: from DGGEMM402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.20.210) by lhreml709-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.32) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.382.0; Tue, 3 Jul 2018 11:39:50 +0100
Received: from DGGEMM512-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.18]) by DGGEMM402-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.3.20.210]) with mapi id 14.03.0382.000; Tue, 3 Jul 2018 18:39:39 +0800
From: Lizhenbin <lizhenbin@huawei.com>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "grow@ietf.org" <grow@ietf.org>, "opsawg@ietf.org" <opsawg@ietf.org>
CC: "Guyunan (Yunan Gu, IP Technology Research Dept. NW)" <guyunan@huawei.com>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>, "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [GROW] FW: New Version Notification for draft-gu-network-mornitoring-protol-00.txt
Thread-Index: AQHUEgftvbjq5MWnD06UoPCF/D0SYKR9SGkQ
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2018 10:39:38 +0000
Message-ID: <5A5B4DE12C0DAC44AF501CD9A2B01A8D8F43F070@dggemm512-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <E793174E-A65C-4E8D-89D7-DC602C5494E8@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <E793174E-A65C-4E8D-89D7-DC602C5494E8@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.206.84]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/ap41u-qfRSnfjGI0x4QtJFEItYo>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] [GROW] FW: New Version Notification for draft-gu-network-mornitoring-protol-00.txt
X-BeenThere: lsr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
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: Tue, 03 Jul 2018 10:39:57 -0000

Hi Acee,
Thank for your attention to the new draft. Please refer to my reply inline.

Best Regards,
Robin



-----Original Message-----
From: OPSAWG [mailto:opsawg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2018 9:24 PM
To: Guyunan (Yunan Gu, IP Technology Research Dept. NW) <guyunan@huawei.com>om>; grow@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] [GROW] FW: New Version Notification for draft-gu-network-mornitoring-protol-00.txt

Hi Yunan, Shunwan, and Zhenbin, 

What are the advantages of inventing a new protocol over just using YANG and NETCONF, RESTCONF, or gNMI? 
[Robin] In the draft we simply mention the difference between NMP and protocols you mentioned for the management plane. Though there is maybe some overlap between the two types of protocols, the protocols you mentioned is not enough for monitoring the control protocol. For example, would we like to use YANG and NETCONF, RESTCONF, or gNMI to export the packets of control protocols such as update message of BGP and/or ISIS PDU, etc. for the purpose of monitoring?


Operators and vendors are doing this anyway. A second alternative would be to listen passively in IS-IS (or OSPF for that matter). Why would anyone want this? 
[Robin] In fact we tried the method you proposed. From our point of view, the basic design principle should be that the monitoring entity should be decoupled from the monitored entity. This is to avoid following cases:
1. The failure of operation of the control protocol may affect the monitoring at the same time.
2. The limitation of the control protocol will also have effect on the monitoring. For example, for the method of listening passively, if there are multiple hops between the listener and the network devices, it has to set up a tunnel as the virtual link for direct connection. But the TCP-based monitoring protocol need not care about it. 


As far as where it belongs, we have a rather full agenda in LSR so I don't think we want to devote time to it there at IETF 102.  
[Robin] Though the WG the draft should belong to is not determined yet, we think the work belongs to OPS area and send the notice to GROW WG and OPSAWG. We also applied for the presentation in the two WGs. We should have copied the notice to the related WGs of RTG area. So the LSR WG and RTGWG WG mailing list are added. More comments and suggestions are welcome.

Thanks,
Acee



On 7/2/18, 8:20 AM, "GROW on behalf of Guyunan (Yunan Gu, IP Technology Research Dept. NW)" <grow-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of guyunan@huawei.com> wrote:

    Dear GROW & OPSAWG WGs,
    
    We have proposed a Network Monitoring Protocol (NMP) for the control plane OAM. NMP for ISIS is illustrated in this draft to showcase the benefit and operation of NMP. Yet, we haven't decided which WG it belongs to. 

   
    Comments and suggestions are very welcome! 
    
    Thank you!
    
    
    Yunan Gu
    Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
    
    -----Original Message-----
    From: internet-drafts@ietf.org [mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org] 
    Sent: 2018年7月2日 20:07
    To: Zhuangshunwan <zhuangshunwan@huawei.com>om>; Lizhenbin <lizhenbin@huawei.com>om>; Guyunan (Yunan Gu, IP Technology Research Dept. NW) <guyunan@huawei.com>
    Subject: New Version Notification for draft-gu-network-mornitoring-protol-00.txt
    
    
    A new version of I-D, draft-gu-network-mornitoring-protol-00.txt
    has been successfully submitted by Yunan Gu and posted to the IETF repository.
    
    Name:		draft-gu-network-mornitoring-protol
    Revision:	00
    Title:		Network Monitoring Protocol (NMP)
    Document date:	2018-07-02
    Group:		Individual Submission
    Pages:		15
    URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gu-network-mornitoring-protol-00.txt
    Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gu-network-mornitoring-protol/
    Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gu-network-mornitoring-protol-00
    Htmlized:       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-gu-network-mornitoring-protol
    
    
    Abstract:
       To enable automated network OAM (Operations, administration and
       management), the availability of network protocol running status
       information is a fundamental step.  In this document, a network
       monitoring protocol (NMP) is proposed to provision the information
       related to running status of IGP (Interior Gateway Protocol) and
       other control protocols.  It can facilitate the network
       troubleshooting of control protocols in a network domain.  Typical
       network issues are illustrated as the usecases of NMP for ISIS to
       showcase the necessity of NMP.  Then the operations and the message
       formats of NMP for ISIS are defined.  In this document ISIS is used
       as the illustration protocol, and the case of OSPF and other control
       protocols will be included in the future version.
    
    
                                                                                      
    
    
    Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
    
    The IETF Secretariat
    
    _______________________________________________
    GROW mailing list
    GROW@ietf.org
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
    

_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg