Re: [OPSAWG] CALL FOR ADOPTION: draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

The issues are that:
1. we are redefining the scope field 
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7011#section-3.4.2.1) for 
instance. Actually multiple identical scope fields in the flow records, 
which is not foreseen in the IPFIX spec.
2. we still depend on the order ... of the scope in this case.
     At this one is a MUST

    If a
    different order of Scope Fields would result in a Record having a
    different semantic meaning, then the order of Scope Fields MUST be
    preserved by the Exporting Process.

3. we start to put instance specific into fixed IE. RFC6313 is the 
answer but doesn't fly for data plane flows

Regards, Benoit

On 9/20/2022 3:00 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
>
> Re-,
>
> Yes, you got it.
>
> Maybe it is simple to consider a new IE that carries in the first 8 
> bits the routing type and the occurrence in the remaining 8 bits. 
> Multiple instances can be then sent if needed. Another approach for 
> encoding both the order and occurrence is to have an IE that prepends 
> the types with the same type repeated when multiple instances are 
> present.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Med
>
> *De :*[e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> *Envoyé :* mardi 20 septembre 2022 14:06
> *À :* BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <[e-mail]>; 
> [e-mail]; jclarke=[e-mail]; 
> [e-mail]
> *Cc :* [e-mail]
> *Objet :* RE: CALL FOR ADOPTION: draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh
>
> Hi Med,
>
> You read my mind. If I read yours correctly you mean that there can be 
> multiple extension headers which could be exposed each with one IE64 
> ipv6ExtensionHeaders. What we don't know is how many times each header 
> type occurs and the order in the packet. What is also missing is the 
> distinguisher between the routing types. Correct?
> Best wishes
> Thomas
>
> *From:*[e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 20, 2022 11:13 AM
> *To:* Graf Thomas, INI-NET-TCZ-ZH1 <[e-mail]>; 
> [e-mail]; jclarke=[e-mail]; 
> [e-mail]
> *Cc:* [e-mail]
> *Subject:* ***Signed_Message*** RE: CALL FOR ADOPTION: 
> draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh
>
> Hi Thomas,
>
> This is a useful addition. Thanks.
>
> A more general question is to check whether one can report the 
> identity of the EHs that form the Header Chain, but this is not 
> specific to this draft. The current ipv6ExtensionHeaders does not 
> allow for that.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Med
>
> *De :*[e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> *Envoyé :* lundi 19 septembre 2022 16:47
> *À :* BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <[e-mail]>; 
> [e-mail]; jclarke=[e-mail]; 
> [e-mail]
> *Cc :* [e-mail]
> *Objet :* RE: CALL FOR ADOPTION: draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh
>
> Hi Med,
>
> Benoit will feedback on your reply.
>
> In the meanwhile I like to take the opportunity to get your feedback 
> on an additional operational consideration section I added based on an 
> off list feedback I received from a software developer implementing 
> the draft document.
>
> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/graf3net/draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh/main/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-01.txt 
> <https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fraw.githubusercontent.com%2Fgraf3net%2Fdraft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh%2Fmain%2Fdraft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-01.txt&data=05%7C01%7CThomas.Graf%40swisscom.com%7C37733f5fdae34ccb6f4508da9ae85748%7C364e5b87c1c7420d9beec35d19b557a1%7C0%7C0%7C637992621065808523%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=xPFmIIS%2Bo7VVshlpesBx5v6OCtC5oJVGAkZQ5ap4xFE%3D&reserved=0>
>
> 5.3.  Multiple Segment Routing Headers
>
>    [RFC8200] describes the support of multiple extension headers in one
>
>    IPv6 packet.  Allowing the use of multiple SRH per SRv6 packet.  The
>
>    export of the same IE multiple times in one data-record and data-
>
>    template is supported and the order within the packet SHOULD be
>
>    preserved in the IPFIX export according to Section 8 of [RFC7011].
>
>    If the network node is not capable to export IPFIX for more than one
>
>    SRH, it MUST export IPFIX for the active SRH.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Thomas
>
> *From:*[e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* Monday, September 19, 2022 2:22 PM
> *To:* Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>; Graf Thomas, 
> INI-NET-TCZ-ZH1 <[e-mail]>; 
> jclarke=[e-mail]; [e-mail]
> *Cc:* [e-mail]
> *Subject:* RE: CALL FOR ADOPTION: draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh
>
> Hi Benoît,
>
> Thank you for the follow-up.
>
> Actually, the more I look into this, the more I’m convinced that we 
> don’t need a new registry for the flags and that the statement “Values 
> for this Information Element are listed in the "IPFIX IPv6 SRH Flags" 
> registry” is restrictive (inaccurate(?)). The flags should be exported 
> as ** observed ** not as set in the registry.
>
> Think about discarded packets because some flags are set (including 
> those already for which a meaning is already defined such as the O 
> flag) while the processing of these flags is not supported by a 
> router. In such cases, one use of the srhFlagsIPv6 IE would be to 
> display the erroneous set of flags together with some error counters. 
> The values of the IE is not “taken from the IANA registry”.
>
> That said, I fully agree that the spec has to indicate “Data Type 
> Semantics:  flags” for that IE.
>
> The same would apply for the srhSegmentEndpointBehavior IE.
>
> Please let me know if I’m missing something. Thanks.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Med
>
> *De :*Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>
> *Envoyé :* samedi 17 septembre 2022 17:39
> *À :* BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <[e-mail]>; 
> [e-mail]; jclarke=[e-mail]; 
> [e-mail]
> *Cc :* [e-mail]; me <[e-mail]>
> *Objet :* Re: CALL FOR ADOPTION: draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh
>
> Hi Med,
>
> Thanks for your comments.
>
> I visited IANA in Philly to validate this propose, but we could 
> re-evaluate & discuss about it.
>
> We need a registry because just telling that we take the value from 
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-parameters/ipv6-parameters.xhtml#segment-routing-header-flags 
> <https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.iana.org%2Fassignments%2Fipv6-parameters%2Fipv6-parameters.xhtml%23segment-routing-header-flags&data=05%7C01%7CThomas.Graf%40swisscom.com%7C37733f5fdae34ccb6f4508da9ae85748%7C364e5b87c1c7420d9beec35d19b557a1%7C0%7C0%7C637992621065808523%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=JL1l5%2FMF4kuugfBlw5oDeOnvG9II1U4wJET9cBM2mrE%3D&reserved=0> 
> is not sufficient as we also need to specify the following IPFIX fields:
> - Abstract Data Type. (unsigned8 in this srhFlagsIPv6 case)
> - Data Type Semantics (flags in srhFlagsIPv6 case)
>
> Now, if your point is that we don't really to mention the initial 
> values ...
>
>     Initial values in the registry are defined by the table
>           below.
>
>     +--------+-------------------+--------------------------------------+
>           | Value  |    Description    | Reference               |
>     +--------+-------------------+--------------------------------------+
>           | 0-1    | Unassigned |                                      |
>     +--------+-------------------+--------------------------------------+
>           | 2      | O-flag            |
>     [RFC-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-13]  |
>     +--------+-------------------+--------------------------------------+
>           | 3-7    | Unassigned |                                      |
>     +--------+-------------------+--------------------------------------+
>
>                        Table 2: "IPFIX IPv6 SRH Flags" registry
>
> ... I agree it's not strictly necessary but it helps (me/the IPFIX 
> experts) to understand, from this document, which type of values are 
> currently available.
>
> See inline.
>
> On 9/16/2022 9:34 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
>
>     Hi Thomas,
>
>     Thank you for preparing this revised version.
>
>     I think almost all my comments are addressed in this version.
>     However, I still don’t see the need to have new registries that
>     only mirror existing ones. For example, and unless I missed some
>     subtleties, it would be sufficient to say that the flag values are
>     taken from
>     https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-parameters/ipv6-parameters.xhtml#segment-routing-header-flags
>     <https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.iana.org%2Fassignments%2Fipv6-parameters%2Fipv6-parameters.xhtml%23segment-routing-header-flags&data=05%7C01%7CThomas.Graf%40swisscom.com%7C37733f5fdae34ccb6f4508da9ae85748%7C364e5b87c1c7420d9beec35d19b557a1%7C0%7C0%7C637992621065808523%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=JL1l5%2FMF4kuugfBlw5oDeOnvG9II1U4wJET9cBM2mrE%3D&reserved=0>rather
>     than adding the following in the I-D:
>
>     +--------+-------------------+--------------------------------------+
>
>           | Value  | Description    | Reference               |
>
>     +--------+-------------------+--------------------------------------+
>
>           | 0-1    | Unassigned |                                      |
>
>     +--------+-------------------+--------------------------------------+
>
>           | 2      | O-flag            |
>     [RFC-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-13]  |
>
>     +--------+-------------------+--------------------------------------+
>
>           | 3-7    | Unassigned |                                      |
>
>     +--------+-------------------+--------------------------------------+
>
>     Table 2: "IPFIX IPv6 SRH Flags" registry
>
>     which is similar in term of encoding and values as what was set by
>     RFC9256:
>
>        IANA has registered the following in the "Segment Routing Header
>
>        Flags" subregistry in the "Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)
>
>        Parameters" registry:
>
>                          +=====+=============+===========+
>
>                          | Bit | Description | Reference |
>
>     +=====+=============+===========+
>
>                           | 2   | O-flag      |RFC 9259  <https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fhtml%2Frfc9259&data=05%7C01%7CThomas.Graf%40swisscom.com%7C37733f5fdae34ccb6f4508da9ae85748%7C364e5b87c1c7420d9beec35d19b557a1%7C0%7C0%7C637992621065808523%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=iMoVMkCP94TxZteB3EmJePTmxI%2BewNRsARG%2FzsUa5M8%3D&reserved=0>   |
>
>                           +-----+-------------+-----------+
>
>     BTW, I guess you initially meant:
>
>     NEW:
>
>     Table 2: "IPFIX IPv6 SRH Flags" registry
>
>        Note to IANA:  Add a note to the "Segment Routing Header Flags"
>     registry
>
>           so that new values are echoed in the new "IPFIX IPv6 SRH Flags”
>
> You are right (since 
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-parameters/ipv6-parameters.xhtml#segment-routing-header-flags 
> <https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.iana.org%2Fassignments%2Fipv6-parameters%2Fipv6-parameters.xhtml%23segment-routing-header-flags&data=05%7C01%7CThomas.Graf%40swisscom.com%7C37733f5fdae34ccb6f4508da9ae85748%7C364e5b87c1c7420d9beec35d19b557a1%7C0%7C0%7C637992621065808523%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=JL1l5%2FMF4kuugfBlw5oDeOnvG9II1U4wJET9cBM2mrE%3D&reserved=0> 
> is "IETF review" while 
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ipfix.xhtml 
> <https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.iana.org%2Fassignments%2Fipfix%2Fipfix.xhtml&data=05%7C01%7CThomas.Graf%40swisscom.com%7C37733f5fdae34ccb6f4508da9ae85748%7C364e5b87c1c7420d9beec35d19b557a1%7C0%7C0%7C637992621065808523%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=7MkKV2NRl0OFbZYgE5%2BtseErVg%2BODHbLcTwydsxVKOQ%3D&reserved=0> 
> is "Expert Review")
>
>     instead of CURRENT:
>
>     Table 2: "IPFIX IPv6 SRH Flags" registry
>
>        Note to IANA:  Add a note to the registry so that new values are
>
>           echoed in the new "IPFIX SRv6 EndPoint Behavior
>
>     The same comment applies for the values that can be directly taken
>     from
>     https://www.iana.org/assignments/segment-routing/segment-routing.xhtml#srv6-endpoint-behaviors
>     <https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.iana.org%2Fassignments%2Fsegment-routing%2Fsegment-routing.xhtml%23srv6-endpoint-behaviors&data=05%7C01%7CThomas.Graf%40swisscom.com%7C37733f5fdae34ccb6f4508da9ae85748%7C364e5b87c1c7420d9beec35d19b557a1%7C0%7C0%7C637992621065808523%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ggzqTrPpyTZM7MpWHbVCB0fbpWLY%2FExC%2Fz6ARVIUOu0%3D&reserved=0>.
>
>
> Yes
> OLD:
>
>                Table 4: "IPFIX SRV6 Endpoint Behavior" registry
>
>
>    Note to IANA:  Add a note to the registry so that new values are
>       echoed in the new "IPFIX SRv6 EndPoint Behavior
>
> NEW:
>
>                Table 4: "IPFIX SRV6 Endpoint Behavior" registry
>
>
>    Note to IANA:  Add a note to the "IPFIX SRV6 Endpoint Behavior" 
> registry so that new values are
>       echoed in the new "IPFIX SRv6 EndPoint Behavior
>
> Regards, Benoit
>
>     Cheers,
>
>     Med
>
>     *De :*[e-mail] <[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     *Envoyé :* jeudi 15 septembre 2022 20:08
>     *À :* BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>;
>     jclarke=[e-mail]; [e-mail]
>     *Cc :* [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>     *Objet :* RE: CALL FOR ADOPTION: draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh
>
>     Dear Med,
>
>     Many thanks for the comprehensive review. Much appreciated. We
>     merged all your input to the upcoming -01 release.
>     https://raw.githubusercontent.com/graf3net/draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh/main/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-01.txt
>     <https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fraw.githubusercontent.com%2Fgraf3net%2Fdraft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh%2Fmain%2Fdraft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-01.txt&data=05%7C01%7CThomas.Graf%40swisscom.com%7C37733f5fdae34ccb6f4508da9ae85748%7C364e5b87c1c7420d9beec35d19b557a1%7C0%7C0%7C637992621065808523%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=xPFmIIS%2Bo7VVshlpesBx5v6OCtC5oJVGAkZQ5ap4xFE%3D&reserved=0>
>
>     The diff to the current -00 version can be found here:
>     https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-00.txt&url2=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/graf3net/draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh/main/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-01.txt
>     <https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Frfcdiff%3Furl1%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Farchive%2Fid%2Fdraft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-00.txt%26url2%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fraw.githubusercontent.com%2Fgraf3net%2Fdraft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh%2Fmain%2Fdraft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-01.txt&data=05%7C01%7CThomas.Graf%40swisscom.com%7C37733f5fdae34ccb6f4508da9ae85748%7C364e5b87c1c7420d9beec35d19b557a1%7C0%7C0%7C637992621065808523%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=m8Il%2FKVGzd69GsHldGPKvRlvHTE4VK9d6yC5aKMPO%2FM%3D&reserved=0>
>
>     For some we need further clarifications if we addressed them
>     correctly. I would appreciate if you could clarify the following
>     three points:
>
>     Med> Section 2, remark: "Why do we need three IE,
>     srhSegmentIPv6ListSection, srhSegmentIPv6BasicList and
>     srhSectionIPv6, to expose SRH Segment List
>
>     Thomas> Section 5.1 should provide the answer. If that should not
>     be sufficient, please suggest how this could be better expressed.
>
>     Med> Section 2: remark: "as series of n octets" is not clearly
>     comprehensible.
>
>     Thomas> Extended to "as series of n octets in IPFIX". Does that
>     makes it clearer?
>
>     Med> Section 4.11, remark: "Do you really need to define a new
>     registry here?"
>
>     Thomas> The registry could potentially be used (and updated) by
>     non IPFIX people.
>
>     Best wishes
>
>     Thomas
>
>     *From:*OPSAWG <[e-mail]> *On Behalf Of
>     *[e-mail]
>     *Sent:* Tuesday, September 6, 2022 10:19 AM
>     *To:* Joe Clarke (jclarke) <jclarke=[e-mail]>;
>     [e-mail]
>     *Subject:* Re: [OPSAWG] CALL FOR ADOPTION:
>     draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh
>
>     Hi all,
>
>     I support.
>
>     FWIW, the authors may found some quick comments at:
>
>      1. pdf:
>         https://github.com/boucadair/IETF-Drafts-Reviews/raw/master/draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-05-rev%20Med.pdf
>         <https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fboucadair%2FIETF-Drafts-Reviews%2Fraw%2Fmaster%2Fdraft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-05-rev%2520Med.pdf&data=05%7C01%7CThomas.Graf%40swisscom.com%7C37733f5fdae34ccb6f4508da9ae85748%7C364e5b87c1c7420d9beec35d19b557a1%7C0%7C0%7C637992621065808523%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=v8H6N3reiWT7ewGbmz13bvMFaBOpRUJVA1Wbz645NAY%3D&reserved=0>
>      2. doc:
>         https://github.com/boucadair/IETF-Drafts-Reviews/raw/master/draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-05-rev%20Med.doc
>         <https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fboucadair%2FIETF-Drafts-Reviews%2Fraw%2Fmaster%2Fdraft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-05-rev%2520Med.doc&data=05%7C01%7CThomas.Graf%40swisscom.com%7C37733f5fdae34ccb6f4508da9ae85748%7C364e5b87c1c7420d9beec35d19b557a1%7C0%7C0%7C637992621065808523%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=iFprB%2Fa0q4eEKdVwmX6ZYOd3%2FbkHkolYelq%2FUap%2BgLY%3D&reserved=0>
>
>     Cheers,
>
>     Med
>
>     *De :*OPSAWG <[e-mail]> *De la part de* Joe Clarke
>     (jclarke)
>     *Envoyé :* jeudi 18 août 2022 22:14
>     *À :* [e-mail]
>     *Objet :* [OPSAWG] CALL FOR ADOPTION:
>     draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh
>
>     Hello, WG.  We’d like to begin a two week call for adoption of
>     this work.  Even as an individual draft it has already received
>     some reviews and has iterated quite a bit. Based on IETF 114 there
>     does seem to be interest in adopting this in opsawg, but we need a
>     formal adoption poll.
>
>     Please review and provide your adoption thoughts no later than
>     September 1, 2022.
>
>     Thanks.
>
>     Joe
>