IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OPSAWG] Questions on draft-lear-opsawg-mud-reporter-00

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Sat, 20 July 2019 10:47 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.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 500CE12009C for <opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Jul 2019 03:47:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 L3mqaq4EkshM for <opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Jul 2019 03:47:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48945120043 for <opsawg@ietf.org>; Sat, 20 Jul 2019 03:47:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1728; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1563619625; x=1564829225; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc: to:references; bh=CWxsfsvJB5vKN6bsDZo9BMMUSOvWvIUVO8w5DivsAuo=; b=BllgxJal5lkXvMWsp6v1iFKO3Xi6fP71Hx5MTSAFCuLgOmQgZrFFY6n8 iK8VR2rmAJHhI4sK4p2YsZNuB/eFHrZz61+n8lssVwLmqtWJG6ylt/z8W ig0M6s+6ugF3/VuUwuonMuinBhzmP8rT3jAzzkMBuqNahmQIYZdWmj7Qn c=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 195
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.64,286,1559520000"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="598692299"
Received: from alln-core-8.cisco.com ([173.36.13.141]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 20 Jul 2019 10:47:03 +0000
Received: from che-vpn-cluster-1-201.cisco.com (che-vpn-cluster-1-201.cisco.com [10.86.240.201]) by alln-core-8.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x6KAkxhA025276 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 20 Jul 2019 10:47:00 GMT
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Message-Id: <253A1C46-3014-41E5-AF4E-BC6383689934@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D7B04771-B58A-4DAC-89E1-E9B56A2E4E5D"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2019 06:46:59 -0400
In-Reply-To: <7CC443D1-5F01-44A4-BA3E-1B2E9E892B80@cisco.com>
Cc: "opsawg@ietf.org" <opsawg@ietf.org>
To: "Joe Clarke (jclarke)" <jclarke@cisco.com>
References: <7CC443D1-5F01-44A4-BA3E-1B2E9E892B80@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.86.240.201, che-vpn-cluster-1-201.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-8.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/S2ZVgcSAO0JM8HTR3SvIlnA9U0Q>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Questions on draft-lear-opsawg-mud-reporter-00
X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Sat, 20 Jul 2019 10:47:07 -0000


> On 19 Jul 2019, at 16:29, Joe Clarke (jclarke) <jclarke@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> Hello, authors.  I’ve been reading through the drafts to be presented at IETF 105, and I just got through this draft.
> 
> I have some questions on the ietf-mud-reporter model.  Would this model be implemented on the MUD controller?

Yes.

>  Would it not make sense for these report nodes to be “config false” as they are mainly used to provide statistics to the collector.

Not sure what you mean.

> 
> I see you’re using a 32-bit int for the drop-count.  Would it not make sense to make this a 64-bit counter instead?  Yeah, this number should be low, but if something goes crazy, having a larger field space might be useful.

It’s a lot of drops.  Let’s talk about scaling this because there are a great many.

Eliot


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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email