IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OPSAWG] [ippm] draft-spiegel-ippm-ioam-rawexport

Giuseppe Fioccola <giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com> Tue, 19 March 2024 08:07 UTC

Return-Path: <giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AC8AC14F617; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 01:07:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.906
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.906 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iYomfjt8cBms; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 01:07:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 276A1C14F614; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 01:07:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.18.186.231]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4TzPNx070Xz6H735; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 16:03:29 +0800 (CST)
Received: from frapeml500005.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.182.85.13]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EEDA5140DD4; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 16:07:44 +0800 (CST)
Received: from frapeml500006.china.huawei.com (7.182.85.219) by frapeml500005.china.huawei.com (7.182.85.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.1.2507.35; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 09:07:44 +0100
Received: from frapeml500006.china.huawei.com ([7.182.85.219]) by frapeml500006.china.huawei.com ([7.182.85.219]) with mapi id 15.01.2507.035; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 09:07:44 +0100
From: Giuseppe Fioccola <giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com>
To: "Thomas.Graf@swisscom.com" <Thomas.Graf@swisscom.com>, "ippm@ietf.org" <ippm@ietf.org>, "opsawg@ietf.org" <opsawg@ietf.org>, "justin.iurman@uliege.be" <justin.iurman@uliege.be>
Thread-Topic: [ippm] draft-spiegel-ippm-ioam-rawexport
Thread-Index: Adp5k6jXQyeYOkNbS/SPBXtiq8UoSwAPbvVQ
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 08:07:44 +0000
Message-ID: <d7fc9fb8a67a41028947111efedfdac1@huawei.com>
References: <7192bc432d5d47aa89e7ced33ff4cc84@swisscom.com>
In-Reply-To: <7192bc432d5d47aa89e7ced33ff4cc84@swisscom.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
msip_labels: MSIP_Label_2e1fccfb-80ca-4fe1-a574-1516544edb53_ActionId=45e23629-9e3f-4f79-873c-455d3a785a47; MSIP_Label_2e1fccfb-80ca-4fe1-a574-1516544edb53_ContentBits=0; MSIP_Label_2e1fccfb-80ca-4fe1-a574-1516544edb53_Enabled=true; MSIP_Label_2e1fccfb-80ca-4fe1-a574-1516544edb53_Method=Standard; MSIP_Label_2e1fccfb-80ca-4fe1-a574-1516544edb53_Name=C2 Internal; MSIP_Label_2e1fccfb-80ca-4fe1-a574-1516544edb53_SetDate=2024-03-19T00:15:23Z; MSIP_Label_2e1fccfb-80ca-4fe1-a574-1516544edb53_SiteId=364e5b87-c1c7-420d-9bee-c35d19b557a1;
x-originating-ip: [10.126.203.63]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_d7fc9fb8a67a41028947111efedfdac1huaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/LKrl4iOIpqnRIqrsygkMJbLWT7c>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] [ippm] draft-spiegel-ippm-ioam-rawexport
X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List <opsawg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/opsawg/>
List-Post: <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 08:07:49 -0000

Hi Thomas, All,
I fully agree about the progress of draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark and draft-spiegel-ippm-ioam-rawexport.
I also think OPSAWG is the right place for the IPFIX IE definitions and for the adoption of these documents.
IPPMers can surely help review since both AltMark and IOAM have been defined in IPPM.

Regards,

Giuseppe

From: ippm <ippm-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Thomas.Graf@swisscom.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2024 1:41 AM
To: ippm@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org; justin.iurman@uliege.be
Subject: [ippm] draft-spiegel-ippm-ioam-rawexport

Dear Justin, Dear OPSAWG and IPPM working groups

Thanks a lot for the presentation at IPPM. I believe that this work needs further refinement by defining also IPFIX entities for IOAM which allow a decomposition of each IOAM dimension fields, thus enabling IPFIX Flow Aggregation as described in RFC 7015 which is a requirement to scale out for IOAM DEX and Trace Option Type. I believe this should be performed after the working group adoption and me should move forward quickly since IOAM is now getting implemented by vendors and applied by operators.

While shepherding IPFIX at OPSAWG, I noticed that most discussions where around choosing the right data type and aligning with the IPFIX registry. Not so much about exposing the right dimensions from the data plane.

draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry is already adopted and well progressed at OPSAWG. I suggest that draft-spiegel-ippm-ioam-rawexport is being adopted together with draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark. With that we are covering both Hybrid Type options developed at IPPM.

In order to pool the IPFIX entity definitions, I believe OPSAWG would be the best place to move with draft-spiegel-ippm-ioam-rawexport forward.

I would appreciate feedback from IPPM and OPSAWG wherever they share my opinion or not.

Best wishes
Thomas

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email