Re: [Lsr] A new version of I-D, draft-liu-lsr-isis-ifit-node-capability-02
Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com> Fri, 03 April 2020 07:32 UTC
Return-Path: <zhoutianran@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 261A33A1334 for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Apr 2020 00:32:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 Ljeu6QXxH7aP for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Apr 2020 00:32:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (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 6C3273A1327 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Apr 2020 00:32:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml740-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 4A130B5A6C98064FC47A for <lsr@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Apr 2020 08:32:41 +0100 (IST)
Received: from nkgeml706-chm.china.huawei.com (10.98.57.153) by lhreml740-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.190) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1713.5; Fri, 3 Apr 2020 08:32:39 +0100
Received: from nkgeml707-chm.china.huawei.com (10.98.57.157) by nkgeml706-chm.china.huawei.com (10.98.57.153) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1713.5; Fri, 3 Apr 2020 15:32:36 +0800
Received: from nkgeml707-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.98.57.157]) by nkgeml707-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.98.57.157]) with mapi id 15.01.1713.004; Fri, 3 Apr 2020 15:32:36 +0800
From: Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com>
To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>, Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
CC: wangyali <wangyali11@huawei.com>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Lsr] A new version of I-D, draft-liu-lsr-isis-ifit-node-capability-02
Thread-Index: AQHWB0ueOMnccFTtAUS3rcuDfuM1+qhjcpcQ//+LFgCAAJCvMP//rs2AgACqdGD//8AtgAAAtFKAAB7aNoAABvuxAAAFy48AAAYbbgAAATFTgAA3xTwg
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2020 07:32:36 +0000
Message-ID: <e73011667bca422b827ec942804c46fb@huawei.com>
References: <1520992FC97B944A9979C2FC1D7DB0F404DB1AD4@dggeml524-mbx.china.huawei.com> <MW3PR11MB4619361A2CA3A402A44914E5C1FE0@MW3PR11MB4619.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <1520992FC97B944A9979C2FC1D7DB0F404DB2336@dggeml524-mbx.china.huawei.com> <68249E56-5702-4C15-9748-439E43F3EB0E@chopps.org> <1520992FC97B944A9979C2FC1D7DB0F404DEFC14@dggeml524-mbx.china.huawei.com> <A937FECB-2013-403E-89B2-47971514F6CF@chopps.org> <80a8f83c76d447dda48280495b3a80a7@huawei.com> <6F0E8437-5D82-4FAC-A061-69E56E1E161D@chopps.org> <2189e17f36764960bf2dcc554cde9ce0@huawei.com> <MW3PR11MB4619925BEF83B0C4512DD284C1C90@MW3PR11MB4619.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <06e8443210924ac788c40fa15972cbdd@huawei.com> <C987B657-64D1-4C70-B471-ED9F1266B990@cisco.com> <3948044C-0CC9-4AE8-8541-4D23A5DF396E@cisco.com> <1520992FC97B944A9979C2FC1D7DB0F404DF089E@dggeml524-mbx.china.huawei.com> <MW3PR11MB46197F8C43B3200B07641838C1C60@MW3PR11MB4619.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CAOj+MMGsVkws0sTw4RRdb_SdWvsuh+2Dxc-upXqT2_pmpO_+Lg@mail.gmail.com> <6930807B-2FF0-4A5C-AD39-D05345C37A5E@chopps.org> <MW3PR11MB461955420610E933ACC44BC4C1C60@MW3PR11MB4619.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <MW3PR11MB461955420610E933ACC44BC4C1C60@MW3PR11MB4619.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.108.203.216]
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/sr_zyE_6_7hctOYhV7z90rStscE>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] A new version of I-D, draft-liu-lsr-isis-ifit-node-capability-02
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: Fri, 03 Apr 2020 07:32:50 -0000
Hi Les, Please let me justify. IMHO, compute a path based on the IFIT capability is the first step that we can correctly get the in-situ telemetry information. And then, based on the reactive control mentioned in the IFIT framework, we can adjust/re-compute the path according to the update of the telemetry information. Tianran -----Original Message----- From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) [mailto:ginsberg@cisco.com] Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2020 8:47 PM To: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>; Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Cc: wangyali <wangyali11@huawei.com>; Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com>; lsr@ietf.org; Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com> Subject: RE: [Lsr] A new version of I-D, draft-liu-lsr-isis-ifit-node-capability-02 Robert - First, +1 to what Chris has said. There is nothing in the lfit-capability draft that defines any information that can be used by IGPs to do what you suggest. Perhaps it is possible that information gleaned via a telemetry application could be used by the IGPs to do something like what you suggest - but this draft is not discussing/defining that. It is simply proposing to advertise information about the capabilities of the lfit application on a given node. Les > -----Original Message----- > From: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org> > Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2020 5:13 AM > To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> > Cc: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > <ginsberg@cisco.com>; wangyali <wangyali11@huawei.com>; Acee Lindem > (acee) <acee@cisco.com>; lsr@ietf.org; Tianran Zhou > <zhoutianran@huawei.com> > Subject: Re: [Lsr] A new version of I-D, > draft-liu-lsr-isis-ifit-node-capability-02 > > We have defined a perfectly acceptable and quite powerful way to do > query and configuration for routers, it's YANG. I'd like to hear why > the the IETF standard mechanism for query and configuration can't work > for this application. > > Telemetry is important, I don't think anyone has said or would say > that it isn't, but that seems orthogonal to this discussion. > > Thanks, > Chris. > [as WG member] > > > > On Apr 2, 2020, at 5:17 AM, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> wrote: > > > > Hi Les, > > > > I would like to respectfully disagree with your assessment. > > > > The fact that today's IGP (or for that matter BGP) routing is static > > from the > perspective of not taking into consideration real performance > measurements from the data plane to me is a bug not a feature. > > > > Building SPT based on static link metrics which in vast majority of > > cases > today are emulated circuits on someone else IP backbone. It was a > great idea when you constructed the network with connection oriented > paradigm (Sonet,SDH, dark fiber, TDM ...) not connection less often best effort one. > > > > So I find this proposal very useful and would vote for adopting it in LSR WG. > To me in-situ telemetry is not just some monitoring tool. It is an > extremely important element to influence how we compute reachability > or at least how we choose active forwarding paths from protocol RIBs to main RIB. > > > > If we extended IGPs to carry TE information, if we extended them to > enable flexible algorithm based path computation I fail to understand > why would we resist to natively enable all of the above with getting > the inputs from real networks to be used as to the parameters to the > above mentioned tools. > > > > Kind regards, > > R. > > > > On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 8:32 AM Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > <ginsberg=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > Yali - > > > > There is a very significant difference between having IGPs advertise > > an > identifier for a service that they use as clients (BFD) and having > IGPs advertise a set of capabilities/options for a telemetry > application which has no direct bearing on the function of the routing protocol. > > > > You are not the first to find using IGPs to flood application > > information very > convenient. But this is not the appropriate role for the IGPs and > over the years we have consistently resisted attempts to do so. > > > > Everything advertised in Router Capabilities today has some close > relationship with the operation of the protocol. Do some of the > existing advertisements "bend the rules" a bit more than I would > prefer? Yes - but there has always been at least a close relationship > to routing protocol function. > > Here there is none. > > > > If you feel compelled to use IGPs to advertise application > > information, you > have RF6823 available (at least for IS-IS). But it is a "high bar" > since it requires you also to use a separate IS-IS instance dedicated > to advertising the application information (see RFC8202). > > I think Chris Hopps's suggestion to use Netconf/YANG to > > configure/retrieve > what you need is most likely more attractive - but I will leave that > for you to decide. > > > > Using IGP Router Capabilities here is wrong in my view. > > > > Les > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: wangyali <wangyali11@huawei.com> > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2020 8:12 PM > > > To: Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com>; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > > > <ginsberg@cisco.com>; Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org> > > > Cc: lsr@ietf.org; Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com> > > > Subject: 答复: [Lsr] A new version of I-D, > > > draft-liu-lsr-isis-ifit-node- > capability- > > > 02 > > > > > > Hi Acee, Chris and Les, > > > > > > This is Yali. Many thanks for your kind comments and suggestion. > > > > > > Besides of signaling MSD by IGP node CAPABILITY TLV, we learned > > > that there's another RFC7883 that advertising S-BFD discriminators > > > in IS-IS. In > my > > > understand, BFD is a protocol to detect faults in the > > > bidirectional path between two forwarding engines, including interface, data links, etc. > > > > > > Similarly, IFIT provides a complete framework of a family of > > > on-path telemetry techniques, which are used to monitoring > > > performance metrics > of > > > service flows, e.g. packet loss, delay. So we consider there's a > > > same methodology with S-BFD that advertising IFIT node capabilities. > > > > > > Please let us know your comments and opinion. Thanks. > > > > > > Best regards, > > > Yali > > > > > > -----邮件原件----- > > > 发件人: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:acee@cisco.com] > > > 发送时间: 2020年4月1日 20:29 > > > 收件人: Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com>; Les Ginsberg > (ginsberg) > > > <ginsberg@cisco.com>; Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org> > > > 抄送: lsr@ietf.org; wangyali <wangyali11@huawei.com> > > > 主题: Re: [Lsr] A new version of I-D, > > > draft-liu-lsr-isis-ifit-node-capability- > 02 > > > > > > Speak as WG Member... > > > > > > On 4/1/20, 8:08 AM, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> wrote: > > > > > > There is also a difference between some of the existing > > > applications advertised in IGP capabilities. For example, MSD is > > > used with the routing information to construct SR paths. The > > > information for all these OAM mechanisms doesn't share this > > > affinity. Also, it seems like a slippery slope > in > > > what is needed for each of the mechanism. > > > Thanks, > > > Acee > > > > > > On 4/1/20, 4:01 AM, "Lsr on behalf of Tianran Zhou" <lsr- > bounces@ietf.org > > > on behalf of zhoutianran@huawei.com> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Les, > > > > > > Thanks very much for your suggestion. I have a quick look at rfc6823. > > > Sounds like a good idea. I will think about it. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Tianran > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) [mailto:ginsberg@cisco.com] > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2020 1:47 PM > > > To: Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com>; Christian Hopps > > > <chopps@chopps.org> > > > Cc: wangyali <wangyali11@huawei.com>; lsr@ietf.org > > > Subject: RE: [Lsr] A new version of I-D, > > > draft-liu-lsr-isis-ifit-node- > > > capability-02 > > > > > > Tianran - > > > > > > I am very much in agreement with the points Chris has made. > > > > > > IGPs do not exist to advertise capabilities/configure > > > applications - > which > > > seems to me to be what you are proposing here. > > > The fact that you can easily define the encodings does not > > > make it > the > > > right thing to do. > > > > > > This issue was discussed at length in the context of > > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6823 . If you were proposing to use > GENAPP I > > > would not object - though I do think Chris has correctly pointed > > > out that NETCONF/YANG is likely a more appropriate solution for your use case. > > > > > > Les > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2020 7:53 PM > > > > To: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org> > > > > Cc: wangyali <wangyali11@huawei.com>; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > > > > <ginsberg@cisco.com>; lsr@ietf.org > > > > Subject: RE: [Lsr] A new version of I-D, > > > > draft-liu-lsr-isis-ifit-node-capability-02 > > > > > > > > Hi Chris, > > > > Thanks for your quick reply, and please see inline. > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Tianran > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Christian Hopps [mailto:chopps@chopps.org] > > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2020 10:00 AM > > > > To: Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com> > > > > Cc: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>; wangyali > > > > <wangyali11@huawei.com>; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > > > <ginsberg@cisco.com>; > > > > lsr@ietf.org > > > > Subject: Re: [Lsr] A new version of I-D, > > > > draft-liu-lsr-isis-ifit-node-capability-02 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 31, 2020, at 9:28 PM, Tianran Zhou > > > <zhoutianran@huawei.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > ZTR> Let's not boil the ocean to compare NETCONF/YANG > > > or > routing > > > > protocol, which is better. But I did not see the modification to > > > > routing protocol with some TLVs is a heavy work, or more > > > complex > than > > > > NETCONF/YANG. I see both are available and useful. > > > > > > > > I'm not sure what you mean by boiling the ocean. I'm > > > saying that > YANG > > > > is built and intended for querying capabilities and configuring > > > > routers. Why isn't that where you are looking first for > > > configuring > your > > > monitoring application? > > > > > > > > ZTR> I know NETCONF can do both query and configuration. > > > And I know > > > > resent YANG-Push improvements to reduce the polling. > > > But > routing > > > > protocol solutions are also widely used for this. There are already > > > > many RFCs and implementation practices. We considered > > > both > ways, > > > and > > > > aimed for different scenarios. > > > > > > > > You don't see the major difference between writing a > > > YANG model > vs > > > > modifying all of the standard IETF routing protocols? > > > > > > > > ZTR> I know many differences between NETCONF and routing > > > protocol. > > > > There are many details on both interfaces, > > > implementations, > scenarios > > > > when comparing them. That's what I mean boil the ocean. > > > > Here I do not know what's the "major difference" you mean? > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Chris. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Lsr mailing list > > > Lsr@ietf.org > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Lsr mailing list > > Lsr@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
- [Lsr] A new version of I-D, draft-liu-lsr-isis-if… wangyali
- Re: [Lsr] A new version of I-D, draft-liu-lsr-isi… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- [Lsr] 答复: A new version of I-D, draft-liu-lsr-isi… wangyali
- Re: [Lsr] A new version of I-D, draft-liu-lsr-isi… Christian Hopps
- [Lsr] 答复: A new version of I-D, draft-liu-lsr-isi… wangyali
- Re: [Lsr] A new version of I-D, draft-liu-lsr-isi… Christian Hopps
- Re: [Lsr] A new version of I-D, draft-liu-lsr-isi… Tianran Zhou
- Re: [Lsr] A new version of I-D, draft-liu-lsr-isi… Christian Hopps
- Re: [Lsr] A new version of I-D, draft-liu-lsr-isi… Christian Hopps
- Re: [Lsr] A new version of I-D, draft-liu-lsr-isi… Tianran Zhou
- Re: [Lsr] A new version of I-D, draft-liu-lsr-isi… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Lsr] A new version of I-D, draft-liu-lsr-isi… Tianran Zhou
- Re: [Lsr] A new version of I-D, draft-liu-lsr-isi… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Lsr] A new version of I-D, draft-liu-lsr-isi… Acee Lindem (acee)
- [Lsr] 答复: A new version of I-D, draft-liu-lsr-isi… wangyali
- Re: [Lsr] A new version of I-D, draft-liu-lsr-isi… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Lsr] A new version of I-D, draft-liu-lsr-isi… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Lsr] A new version of I-D, draft-liu-lsr-isi… Christian Hopps
- Re: [Lsr] A new version of I-D, draft-liu-lsr-isi… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Lsr] A new version of I-D, draft-liu-lsr-isi… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Lsr] A new version of I-D, draft-liu-lsr-isi… Jeff Tantsura
- Re: [Lsr] A new version of I-D, draft-liu-lsr-isi… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Lsr] A new version of I-D, draft-liu-lsr-isi… Christian Hopps
- [Lsr] problem joining interim [Re: A new version … Christian Hopps
- Re: [Lsr] problem joining interim [Re: A new vers… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Lsr] A new version of I-D, draft-liu-lsr-isi… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Lsr] problem joining interim [Re: A new vers… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Lsr] A new version of I-D, draft-liu-lsr-isi… Jeff Tantsura
- Re: [Lsr] A new version of I-D, draft-liu-lsr-isi… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Lsr] problem joining interim [Re: A new vers… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Lsr] A new version of I-D, draft-liu-lsr-isi… Christian Hopps
- Re: [Lsr] 答复: A new version of I-D, draft-liu-lsr… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [Lsr] A new version of I-D, draft-liu-lsr-isi… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [Lsr] A new version of I-D, draft-liu-lsr-isi… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Lsr] A new version of I-D, draft-liu-lsr-isi… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [Lsr] A new version of I-D, draft-liu-lsr-isi… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Lsr] A new version of I-D, draft-liu-lsr-isi… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [Lsr] A new version of I-D, draft-liu-lsr-isi… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Lsr] A new version of I-D, draft-liu-lsr-isi… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [Lsr] A new version of I-D, draft-liu-lsr-isi… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Lsr] A new version of I-D, draft-liu-lsr-isi… tony.li
- Re: [Lsr] A new version of I-D, draft-liu-lsr-isi… Jeff Tantsura
- Re: [Lsr] A new version of I-D, draft-liu-lsr-isi… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [Lsr] A new version of I-D, draft-liu-lsr-isi… Aijun Wang
- Re: [Lsr] A new version of I-D, draft-liu-lsr-isi… Tianran Zhou
- Re: [Lsr] 答复: A new version of I-D, draft-liu-lsr… Tianran Zhou
- Re: [Lsr] A new version of I-D, draft-liu-lsr-isi… Jeff Tantsura
- Re: [Lsr] A new version of I-D, draft-liu-lsr-isi… Tianran Zhou
- Re: [Lsr] A new version of I-D, draft-liu-lsr-isi… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Lsr] problem joining interim [Re: A new vers… bruno.decraene
- Re: [Lsr] problem joining interim [Re: A new vers… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Lsr] problem joining interim [Re: A new vers… Christian Hopps
- Re: [Lsr] problem joining interim [Re: A new vers… Lou Berger
- Re: [Lsr] problem joining interim [Re: A new vers… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Lsr] problem joining interim [Re: A new vers… Jeff Tantsura
- Re: [Lsr] 答复: A new version of I-D, draft-liu-lsr… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [Lsr] 答复: A new version of I-D, draft-liu-lsr… Tianran Zhou