Hi Joe,
I think this document fills a hole in the set of YANG models we have for
managing and operating services over our network, and I'd like the WG to
pick it up and polish it.
I commit to doing a review or two as the draft advances. To kick that
off there are a few comments below. None of these needs to be addressed
before adoption.
Best,
Adrian
---
It is unclear to me from Section 1 whether this document is intended to
be limited to L3VPNs or applies to all VPNs. The very first sentence
gives a strong hint that the scope is restricted to L3VPN, but I think
that is not the intention.
---
Maybe Figure 1 should be set in the context of RFC 8309. In particular,
s/Service Network Models/Network Service Models/
But it might also be nice to include a reference to 8309 to help give
meaning to the figure.
---
Looking at...
+--ro inbound-octets? yang:counter64
+--ro inbound-unicast? yang:counter64
+--ro inbound-nunicast? yang:counter64
+--ro inbound-discards? yang:counter32
+--ro inbound-errors? yang:counter32
+--ro inbound-unknown-protocol? yang:counter32
+--ro outbound-octets? yang:counter64
+--ro outbound-unicast? yang:counter64
+--ro outbound-nunicast? yang:counter64
+--ro outbound-discards? yang:counter32
+--ro outbound-errors? yang:counter32
I tend to agree that there are likely to be an order of magnitude fewer
discards and errors than legitimate packets, but I can also consider
times (such as during attacks) then every packet is in error or is
discarded. I think it would be wise (and possibly helpful) to have all
of the counters at 64bits.
This would also mean that the four counters under loss-statistics should
also be counter64.
-----Original Message-----
From: OPSAWG <opsawg-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Joe Clarke (jclarke)
Sent: 29 January 2021 14:18
To: opsawg@ietf.org
Subject: [OPSAWG] CALL FOR ADOPTION: draft-www-opsawg-yang-vpn-service-pm
Hello, WG. The draft-www-opsawg-yang-vpn-service-pm (A YANG Model for
Network and VPN Service Performance Monitoring) work has been steadily
progressing with the other VPN network model work. This was presented
last at IETF 109
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/slides-109-opsawg-a-yang-model-for-network
-and-vpn-service-performance-monitoring/),
and there has been some recent discussion on list that has been
addressed by the authors. We would like to know if the working group
wants to formally adopt this work.
Please respond with your comments and thoughts on the draft. We will
conduct a two week CFA, concluding on February 12, 2021.
Joe (on behalf of co-chairs)
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
