Re: [OPSAWG] FW: FW: WG adoption poll for In-Situ OAM drafts

[Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]>]

I share that concern.

I think that for this to fly, there needs to be a hardware friendly version.

It also seems to me that lots of applications would be satisfied with an 
approach that assumes that all routers are honest, perhaps simply 
setting a bit in a bit field, reserving the ultra-cautious check for 
special faults or special operating environments.

Stewart


On 10/01/2017 17:52, Linda Dunbar wrote:
>
> Frank,
>
> Your suggested approach requires egress node to do the computation of 
> “(Secret +RND) mod prime” and perform the comparison for every packet. 
> For a node with hundreds of ports and each with 10G-100G capacity, the 
> computation & comparison would be very heavy.
>
> Linda
>
> *From:*Frank Brockners (fbrockne) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* 2017年1月3日7:43
> *To:* Linda Dunbar <[e-mail]>; Ram Krishnan 
> <[e-mail]>; Zhoutianran <[e-mail]>; 
> [e-mail]
> *Subject:* RE: [OPSAWG] FW: FW: WG adoption poll for In-Situ OAM drafts
>
> Hi Linda,
>
> thanks for supporting 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brockners-inband-oam-requirements-02.txt.
>
> On 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brockners-proof-of-transit-02.txt: 
> Could you elaborate a bit more why you believe that the approach would 
> be too complicated for the egress node? All it takes for the verifier 
> node is to perform a “(Secret + RND) mod prime” operation and compare 
> this to the CML number received in the packet (RND and CML are the two 
> numbers carried within the packet).
>
> Thanks, Frank
>
> *From:*OPSAWG [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *Linda Dunbar
> *Sent:* Dienstag, 3. Januar 2017 14:27
> *To:* Ram Krishnan <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; 
> Zhoutianran <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; 
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* Re: [OPSAWG] FW: FW: WG adoption poll for In-Situ OAM drafts
>
> I support WG Adoption of 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brockners-inband-oam-requirements-02.txt 
>
>
> But I don’t support the detailed mechanism described in 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brockners-proof-of-transit-02.txtto 
> be adopted. I think the approaches described are too complicated for 
> the egress nodes.
> Linda Dunbar
>
> *From:*OPSAWG [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *Ram Krishnan
> *Sent:* 2016年12月30日6:41
> *To:* Zhoutianran <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* Re: [OPSAWG] FW: FW: WG adoption poll for In-Situ OAM drafts
>
> Hi Tianran,
>
> I can see the new draft playing predominantly a complementary role. I 
> have summarized some of the key areas and also added comments, please 
> see below.
>
> 1)https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brockners-inband-oam-requirements-02.txt 
>
>
> -Complementary role of new draft:
>
> oMinimizing of In-band Telemetry Header for a specific use case such 
> as latency measurement
>
> oData export options
>
> §Summarizing monitoring information to build a scalable solution – for 
> example, alert the central management system only when 99^th 
> percentile queue depth exceeds a high threshold for a flow
>
> §Flow mirroring
>
> oService chaining use case (independent and coupled with 
> underlay/overlay) – describes how network monitoring can help in 
> identifying server side issues and pave the way to dynamic resource 
> orchestration to remedy the issue
>
> 2)https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brockners-inband-oam-data-02.txt
>
> -Complementary role of new draft:
>
> oMinimizing of In-band Telemetry Header format
>
> oData export options format
>
> -Comments on above draft:
> oI am surprised to see 
> http://p4.org/wp-content/uploads/fixed/INT/INT-current-spec.pdf not 
> being referenced.
> 3)https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lapukhov-dataplane-probe-01
> -Comments on above draft:
> oThe above id focusses on injected probe packets. The new draft is 
> applicable to all packets including injected probe packets.
> 4)Mapping in-band telemetry to different transport protocols – new 
> contribution (this could be a separate draft or might be input to be 
> above drafts)
>
> oComplementary role of new draft:
>
> §IPSEC use case for WAN and DC (beyond internet connectivity) and mapping
>
> §VXLAN-GPE/Geneve/NSH mapping
>
> 5)https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brockners-proof-of-transit-02.txt
> -Comments on above draft:
> oOne of the key reasons for packets following a path different from a 
> traffic engineered/service chain path is misconfiguration. With that 
> background,
> §With an administrative domain, practical service verification 
> scheme(s) 
> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-nfvrg-service-verification/?include_text=) 
> could suffice
> §The elaborate proof of transit scheme suggested in this draft is 
> possibly applicable across administrative domains where it may not be 
> possible to mandate service verification. Additionally, when the path 
> is changed dynamically based on intermediate node state it is not 
> clear how this scheme will work.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ramki
>
> *From:*Zhoutianran [mailto:[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>]
> *Sent:* Sunday, December 25, 2016 10:57 PM
> *To:* ram krishnan <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; 
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> *Subj**ect:*RE: [OPSAWG] FW: FW: WG adoption poll for In-Situ OAM drafts
>
> Hi Ramki,
>
> Thanks for bringing a new I-D to this WG.
>
> Could you please state the relationship or potential overlay with the 
> In Situ OAM serial I-Ds and also 
> (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lapukhov-dataplane-probe-01)?
>
> Best,
>
> Tianran
>
> *From:*OPSAWG [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *ram krishnan
> *Sent:* Saturday, December 24, 2016 7:09 PM
> *To:* [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* [OPSAWG] FW: FW: WG adoption poll for In-Situ OAM drafts
>
> I support adoption of these drafts.
>
> In addition, I would like bring a closely related draft to your 
> attention -- 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-krishnan-opsawg-in-band-pro-sla/?include_text=1
>
> This draft brings some important contributions in the area of 
> requirements and data formats for
>
> -IPSEC tunneling
>
> -Pre-construction/minimizing of Telemetry header
>
> -Service chaining – benefits beyond the network interconnect
>
> I was hoping to get this draft out by Seoul timeframe and make it in 
> person, unfortunately couldn’t. Looking forward to discussions and 
> collaboration on this interesting topic.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ramki
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: *ram krishnan* <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Date: Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 1:59 PM
> Subject: FW: [OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for In-Situ OAM drafts
> To: Ram Krishnan <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>
> On 12/7/16 01:36, Zhoutianran wrote:
>
>     Hi All,
>
>       
>
>       
>
>       
>
>     In Seoul, we got enough interest on the In Situ OAM work and positive
>
>     response on related drafts.
>
>     So this email starts a formal poll for adoption the following I-Ds.
>
>       
>
>       
>
>       
>
>     ​​
>     <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brockners-inband-oam-requirements-02.txt>
>
>     https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brockners-inband-oam-requirements-02.txt
>
>     https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brockners-inband-oam-data-02.txt
>
>     https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brockners-proof-of-transit-02.txt
>
>       
>
>       
>
>       
>
>     To be efficient, we have the poll for three I-Ds in one thread. But you
>
>     can give your opinion on each of them. And the result is per I-D.
>
>       
>
>       
>
>       
>
>     The question is:
>
>     Do you think that the WG should adopt all or some of these drafts?
>
>       
>
>       
>
>
> -- 
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
> believed to be clean.
>
>
>
> -- 
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ramki
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OPSAWG mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg