RE: [Lsr] [GROW] FW: New Version Notification for draft-gu-network-mornitoring-protol-00.txt

Lizhenbin <lizhenbin@huawei.com> Thu, 05 July 2018 10:48 UTC

Return-Path: <lizhenbin@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30B24130EC1; Thu, 5 Jul 2018 03:48:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 PrttrygRDhEk; Thu, 5 Jul 2018 03:48:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (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 725D9126DBF; Thu, 5 Jul 2018 03:48:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from LHREML713-CAH.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id EB887275D7E6B; Thu, 5 Jul 2018 11:48:51 +0100 (IST)
Received: from DGGEMM404-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.20.212) by LHREML713-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.382.0; Thu, 5 Jul 2018 11:48:53 +0100
Received: from DGGEMM512-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.18]) by DGGEMM404-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.3.20.212]) with mapi id 14.03.0382.000; Thu, 5 Jul 2018 18:48:41 +0800
From: Lizhenbin <lizhenbin@huawei.com>
To: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "grow@ietf.org" <grow@ietf.org>, "opsawg@ietf.org" <opsawg@ietf.org>
CC: "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>, "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>, "Guyunan (Yunan Gu, IP Technology Research Dept. NW)" <guyunan@huawei.com>
Subject: RE: [Lsr] [GROW] FW: New Version Notification for draft-gu-network-mornitoring-protol-00.txt
Thread-Topic: [Lsr] [GROW] FW: New Version Notification for draft-gu-network-mornitoring-protol-00.txt
Thread-Index: AQHUExLxzpXvqzyrikSNWqEPCnbxK6SAcbFQ
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2018 10:48:41 +0000
Message-ID: <5A5B4DE12C0DAC44AF501CD9A2B01A8D8F43FE44@dggemm512-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <624FB76E-1588-4D6E-8DD6-A666C77A9201@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <624FB76E-1588-4D6E-8DD6-A666C77A9201@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.206.84]
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/rtgwg/Ieqz9oid9iAM4-Z3iQbNOrk5Q58>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <rtgwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtgwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2018 10:48:59 -0000

Hi Jeff,
Before we propose the NMP idea, we carefully compared it with the existing NETCONF, gRPC and YANG models work:
1. Based on my experience in the YANG model work, it may be not satisfactory for these models does not define config/oper of all features of specific protocol and these models have much relation with each other and it is difficult to stabilize the definition.
2. For monitoring the control protocol, it is not enough based on the existing YANG models such as the packets of control protocol which should be monitored but not defined in YANG models. 
3. Performance concern on the existing NETCONF.
4. Standardization of the existing gRPC.

We would like to define the NMP based on the usecases. That is, a specific set of parameters exported by NMP can satisfy the purpose of a specific usecase. Thus the protocol can be deployed incrementally.


Best Regards,
Robin



-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Tantsura [mailto:jefftant.ietf@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2018 5:15 AM
To: Acee Lindem (acee) <acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>rg>; Lizhenbin <lizhenbin@huawei.com>om>; grow@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org
Cc: lsr@ietf.org; rtgwg@ietf.org; Guyunan (Yunan Gu, IP Technology Research Dept. NW) <guyunan@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] [GROW] FW: New Version Notification for draft-gu-network-mornitoring-protol-00.txt

Robin,

Pretty much same comment as Acee - I'm not clear as to why...
Protocol YANG models developed in the last years clearly provide much better and more scalable approach to what has been proposed in the draft, since we are talking is-is - look at notifications in draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg. How do you propose to corelate operational state to configuration?

gRPC provides high performance RPC framework  to streaming the telemetry data that is structured, easy to consume and extend. 

I'm not going to go into technical discussion, however would appreciate your response as to why NMP (please do not restate the points in the section 4 of the draft, they are quite incorrect) 

Thanks!

Cheers,
Jeff

On 7/3/18, 09:21, "Lsr on behalf of Acee Lindem (acee)" <lsr-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

    Hi Robin, 
    I'm not arguing to deprecate BMP. What I am arguing is that the fact that BMP was created 15 years ago doesn't necessarily mean we should create an analogous IMP for IS-IS given the current IETF OPS technologies and the fact that faster link speeds and Moore's law facilitate deployment of these new OPS technologies. Anyway, I looked at the agenda and I will definitely attend GROW on Wednesday afternoon for the discussion. 
    Thanks,
    Acee 
    
    On 7/3/18, 6:40 AM, "Lizhenbin" <lizhenbin@huawei.com> wrote:
    
        Hi Acee,
        Thank for your attention to the new draft. Please refer to my reply inline.
        
        Best Regards,
        Robin
        
        
        
        -----Original Message-----
        From: OPSAWG [mailto:opsawg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
        Sent: Monday, July 02, 2018 9:24 PM
        To: Guyunan (Yunan Gu, IP Technology Research Dept. NW) <guyunan@huawei.com>om>; grow@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org
        Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] [GROW] FW: New Version Notification for draft-gu-network-mornitoring-protol-00.txt
        
        Hi Yunan, Shunwan, and Zhenbin, 
        
        What are the advantages of inventing a new protocol over just using YANG and NETCONF, RESTCONF, or gNMI? 
        [Robin] In the draft we simply mention the difference between NMP and protocols you mentioned for the management plane. Though there is maybe some overlap between the two types of protocols, the protocols you mentioned is not enough for monitoring the control protocol. For example, would we like to use YANG and NETCONF, RESTCONF, or gNMI to export the packets of control protocols such as update message of BGP and/or ISIS PDU, etc. for the purpose of monitoring?
        
        
        Operators and vendors are doing this anyway. A second alternative would be to listen passively in IS-IS (or OSPF for that matter). Why would anyone want this? 
        [Robin] In fact we tried the method you proposed. From our point of view, the basic design principle should be that the monitoring entity should be decoupled from the monitored entity. This is to avoid following cases:
        1. The failure of operation of the control protocol may affect the monitoring at the same time.
        2. The limitation of the control protocol will also have effect on the monitoring. For example, for the method of listening passively, if there are multiple hops between the listener and the network devices, it has to set up a tunnel as the virtual link for direct connection. But the TCP-based monitoring protocol need not care about it. 
        
        
        As far as where it belongs, we have a rather full agenda in LSR so I don't think we want to devote time to it there at IETF 102.  
        [Robin] Though the WG the draft should belong to is not determined yet, we think the work belongs to OPS area and send the notice to GROW WG and OPSAWG. We also applied for the presentation in the two WGs. We should have copied the notice to the related WGs of RTG area. So the LSR WG and RTGWG WG mailing list are added. More comments and suggestions are welcome.
        
        Thanks,
        Acee
        
        
        
        On 7/2/18, 8:20 AM, "GROW on behalf of Guyunan (Yunan Gu, IP Technology Research Dept. NW)" <grow-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of guyunan@huawei.com> wrote:
        
            Dear GROW & OPSAWG WGs,
            
            We have proposed a Network Monitoring Protocol (NMP) for the control plane OAM. NMP for ISIS is illustrated in this draft to showcase the benefit and operation of NMP. Yet, we haven't decided which WG it belongs to. 
        
           
            Comments and suggestions are very welcome! 
            
            Thank you!
            
            
            Yunan Gu
            Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
            
            -----Original Message-----
            From: internet-drafts@ietf.org [mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org] 
            Sent: 2018年7月2日 20:07
            To: Zhuangshunwan <zhuangshunwan@huawei.com>om>; Lizhenbin <lizhenbin@huawei.com>om>; Guyunan (Yunan Gu, IP Technology Research Dept. NW) <guyunan@huawei.com>
            Subject: New Version Notification for draft-gu-network-mornitoring-protol-00.txt
            
            
            A new version of I-D, draft-gu-network-mornitoring-protol-00.txt
            has been successfully submitted by Yunan Gu and posted to the IETF repository.
            
            Name:		draft-gu-network-mornitoring-protol
            Revision:	00
            Title:		Network Monitoring Protocol (NMP)
            Document date:	2018-07-02
            Group:		Individual Submission
            Pages:		15
            URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gu-network-mornitoring-protol-00.txt
            Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gu-network-mornitoring-protol/
            Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gu-network-mornitoring-protol-00
            Htmlized:       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-gu-network-mornitoring-protol
            
            
            Abstract:
               To enable automated network OAM (Operations, administration and
               management), the availability of network protocol running status
               information is a fundamental step.  In this document, a network
               monitoring protocol (NMP) is proposed to provision the information
               related to running status of IGP (Interior Gateway Protocol) and
               other control protocols.  It can facilitate the network
               troubleshooting of control protocols in a network domain.  Typical
               network issues are illustrated as the usecases of NMP for ISIS to
               showcase the necessity of NMP.  Then the operations and the message
               formats of NMP for ISIS are defined.  In this document ISIS is used
               as the illustration protocol, and the case of OSPF and other control
               protocols will be included in the future version.
            
            
                                                                                              
            
            
            Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
            
            The IETF Secretariat
            
            _______________________________________________
            GROW mailing list
            GROW@ietf.org
            https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
            
        
        _______________________________________________
        OPSAWG mailing list
        OPSAWG@ietf.org
        https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
        
    
    _______________________________________________
    Lsr mailing list
    Lsr@ietf.org
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr