Subject: Rare project developers
List archive
- From: Tim Chown <>
- To: "" <>
- Cc: mc36 <>, Ronald van der Pol <>, "" <>
- Subject: Re: [rare-dev] [gn4-3-wp6-t1-wb-RARE] INT/iOAM
- Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2021 14:58:24 +0000
- Accept-language: en-GB, en-US
- Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=jisc.ac.uk; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=jisc.ac.uk; dkim=pass header.d=jisc.ac.uk; arc=none
- Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=gZGs9q88iF60IUClI9x4dzgFwuXy13H1b9157E2n+U4=; b=N9AT16eQebB5Ugi+a70mSEqDpv5JcKgdLlKl+FZK0drZ/Kman51adDJzzI6T/wgBTs43D5wH87J1irfur41UJoJ01SmX0E/5fHUF7/CzBAPKxHLBndW3lIhmf2xN6TFVuIycPSB2LtE2lP6j0pXNSN5IAuGFCFeEyTO/rCEKKdU6/bg0JlCsS71VaYxlVaWvslBJ1rw7bYOo4d8EBcEL0S84mgq5YEhQVbfLFLTFOM56ycdMOWs0O395W2jvGtyQAJ+C6GZP8oo5lIhIv5ziAlP64Ed8MQMlKVgpMFBADCVqb+kphplGfoVbFwrmZnA4JtHEfoXgyvaWtTOtl/A8Rw==
- Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=fee5mV/rq4E9+msYthbWJcR8uSr8TZvV0IkUB0QIOJrVa6/0pAwLewjntQzfuCBnkisQp81rrrEviE0tXaFtKJsMZe8qPVc/nT9Jo3I3cZGcAEgOH+/rgpxJlkjcDfxF8+fixaCJKV+mdPbXTtjZ6YIKvlF+DhtqpMS+zhPcNmT9zaBtffG+4qXGDkslyB3+YXnQmA74Kb0jpWTsRBrNFZR6LuvmzzuP4jQoh7pKZlGI2yqjMvfYD5v/R8UeRcq47DxroJSmGmIOKwK2rV98gWGxKgHrmaAKOt3VXR4C50fT4y/ib7yRwGtiRPjAe4oGPRl6X8TX6iag3p5fOl3FOA==
- Authentication-results: lists.geant.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;lists.geant.org; dmarc=none action=none header.from=jisc.ac.uk;
Hi,
(Catching up)
> On 26 Mar 2021, at 11:23, Ronald van der Pol <>
> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 11:12:16 +0100, mc36 wrote:
>
>> not bad... i'm also on the opinion that int headers are better before
>> the udp/tcp/gre/whatever simply because if they're not, then it fucks up
>> the parser logic, so int cannot coexist with anything else involving layer4
>> stuff like nat, l2tp, mpls in gre, etc... but again, we should see what
>> nexus9k does and align to them.... not we're the internet at the moment,
>> nor barefoot who seemingly pushes that after-layer4 approach....
>
> To be honest, I lost my interest in INT/iOAM a bit when I
> followed the discussions around MTU/tunnel issues ( INT adds
> bytes to the packet) in the IETF. The recommendation was to
> use INT only in one domain, e.g. a data centre.
Yeah, and I think I was one of those IETF people.
It depends on the use case though; it has uses outside the DC, but then you
really need to know the MTUs involved. As it happens R&E backbones tend
to support something over 9000.
> But INT keeps comming back and maybe we should just experiment
> with it and explore the operational issues.
Indeed, and I think that’s the idea with implementing it in RARE.
The report from the Task1 DPP/INT team is worth reading if you haven’t
already:
https://www.geant.org/Resources/Documents/GN4-3_White-Paper_In-Band-Network-Telemetry.pdf
One of the open issues is with the clock synchronisation, as reported above.
The T1 team has an open doc on this at the moment:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/154PQUUfqwMo6PNWYGGTFWXNKXuwnXnk31Rbx5XmRbio/edit
I think it’s also important to follow the IOAM work of the IETF. The data
fields
draft for IOAM has now been submitted for publication as an RFC, which
Is more evidence of it hardening up:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data/
I guess most NRENs will likely see IAOM (implemented by Cisco, Juniper, etc)
than INT, but to have an INT implementation that NRENs can experiment with
would be interesting.
Tim
- Re: [rare-dev] [gn4-3-wp6-t1-wb-RARE] INT/iOAM, Tim Chown, 04/08/2021
- Re: [rare-dev] [gn4-3-wp6-t1-wb-RARE] INT/iOAM, Ronald van der Pol, 04/08/2021
- Re: [rare-dev] [gn4-3-wp6-t1-wb-RARE] INT/iOAM, mc36, 04/08/2021
- Re: [rare-dev] [gn4-3-wp6-t1-wb-RARE] INT/iOAM, Ronald van der Pol, 04/08/2021
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.