Speaking as WG member:

Hi Tianran,

The more I look, the less I like this. We have a YANG infra-structure for 
telemetry data using YANG pub/sub. It is being implement and deployed over both 
NETCONF and proprietary transports. Why would we want to take just this type of 
telemetry out and handle it differently??? See an inline below…

From: Tianran Zhou <zhoutian...@huawei.com>
Date: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 3:22 AM
To: Acee Lindem <a...@cisco.com>, Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.i...@gmail.com>, "Les 
Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>, Tony Li 
<tony1ath...@gmail.com>
Cc: Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com>, 
"draft-song-opsawg-ifit-framew...@ietf.org" 
<draft-song-opsawg-ifit-framew...@ietf.org>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>, 
"ops...@ietf.org" <ops...@ietf.org>, 
"draft-wang-lsr-ifit-node-capability-advertisem...@ietf.org" 
<draft-wang-lsr-ifit-node-capability-advertisem...@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [Lsr] I,Scope of FIT Capability: a node or a link?

Hi Acee,

About the “IFIT specific information channel”, as in 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-qin-idr-sr-policy-ifit/
we propose to use bgp enabled sr-policy for IFIT auto deployment.
It’s reasonable to incorporate both traffic engineering and monitoring.

I think this is a terrible idea. Why wouldn’t you just provision it via a YANG 
subscription? An SR Policy could be identified by a <color, endpoint> tuple in 
the subscription? There can be many candidate SR policies but only the 
best-path is active. You’d need to update all the candidate policies in order 
to assure your iFIT tracing is enabled on the corresponding SR path. Why would 
you want to put this in BGP?

Acee


Thanks,
Tianran

发件人: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:a...@cisco.com]
发送时间: 2020年4月7日 2:54
收件人: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.i...@gmail.com>; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) 
<ginsberg=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>; Tony Li <tony1ath...@gmail.com>
抄送: Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com>; 
draft-song-opsawg-ifit-framew...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org; ops...@ietf.org; 
Tianran Zhou <zhoutian...@huawei.com>; 
draft-wang-lsr-ifit-node-capability-advertisem...@ietf.org
主题: Re: [Lsr] I,Scope of FIT Capability: a node or a link?

Speaking as WG member – It seems that additional IFIT-specific information is 
required to make this useful and the IGPs are certainly not the case. 
Additionally, the point was made that an IFIT specific information channel 
would anyway be required to provision the telemetry generation.
Thanks,
Acee

From: Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of Jeff 
Tantsura <jefftant.i...@gmail.com<mailto:jefftant.i...@gmail.com>>
Date: Monday, April 6, 2020 at 2:33 PM
To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" 
<ginsberg=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:ginsberg=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>>,
 Tony Li <tony1ath...@gmail.com<mailto:tony1ath...@gmail.com>>
Cc: Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com<mailto:gregimir...@gmail.com>>, 
"draft-song-opsawg-ifit-framew...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-song-opsawg-ifit-framew...@ietf.org>"
 
<draft-song-opsawg-ifit-framew...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-song-opsawg-ifit-framew...@ietf.org>>,
 "lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org>" <lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org>>, 
"ops...@ietf.org<mailto:ops...@ietf.org>" 
<ops...@ietf.org<mailto:ops...@ietf.org>>, Tianran Zhou 
<zhoutian...@huawei.com<mailto:zhoutian...@huawei.com>>, 
"draft-wang-lsr-ifit-node-capability-advertisem...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-wang-lsr-ifit-node-capability-advertisem...@ietf.org>"
 
<draft-wang-lsr-ifit-node-capability-advertisem...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-wang-lsr-ifit-node-capability-advertisem...@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] I,Scope of FIT Capability: a node or a link?

+1
Please do not take my comments about link vs node capabilities, as support for 
the solution, they are semantical.

Cheers,
Jeff
On Apr 6, 2020, 8:58 AM -0700, Tony Li 
<tony1ath...@gmail.com<mailto:tony1ath...@gmail.com>>, wrote:


This discussion is interesting, but please do not ignore the considerable 
feedback from multiple folks indicating that this advertisement does not belong 
in the IGP at all (regardless of scope).
My opinion on that has not changed.


+1

IS-IS is not the correct place to implement Service Discovery mechanisms. The 
management plane already has ample mechanisms for service and capability 
discovery.

Tony


_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org<mailto:Lsr@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Reply via email to