Internet DRAFT - draft-gu-opsawg-network-monitoring-igp
draft-gu-opsawg-network-monitoring-igp
Network Working Group Y. Gu
Internet-Draft S. Chen
Intended status: Standards Track Huawei
Expires: August 23, 2021 Y. Qu
Futurewei
H. Chen
China Telecom
Z. Li
Huawei
February 19, 2021
Network Monitoring For IGP
draft-gu-opsawg-network-monitoring-igp-01
Abstract
To evolve towards automated network OAM (Operations, administration
and management), the monitoring of control plane protocols is a
fundamental necessity. This document proposes network monitoring for
IGP to facilitate troubleshooting by collecting the IGP monitoring
data and reporting it to the network monitoring server in real-time.
In this document, the operations of network monitoring for ISIS are
described, and the corresponding network monitoring message types and
message formats are defined.
Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 23, 2021.
Gu, et al. Expires August 23, 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Network Monitoring For IGP February 2021
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. IS-IS Route Flapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. IS-IS LSDB Synchronization Failure . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. Protocol Selection Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. Message Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.3. Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3.1. Common Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3.2. Per Adjacency Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3.3. Initiation Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3.4. Adjacency Status Change Notification . . . . . . . . 9
4.3.5. ISIS Statistic Report Message . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.3.6. IS-IS PDU Monitoring Message . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.3.7. Termination Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5. IANA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction
1.1. Motivation
The requirement for better network OAM approaches has been greatly
driven by the network evolvement. The concept of network Telemetry
has been proposed to meet the current and future OAM demands w.r.t.,
Gu, et al. Expires August 23, 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Network Monitoring For IGP February 2021
massive and real-time data storage, collection, process, export, and
analysis, and an architectural framework of existing Telemetry
approaches is introduced in [I-D.song-ntf]. Network Telemetry
provides visibility to the network health conditions, and is
beneficial for faster network troubleshooting, network OpEx
(operating expenditure) reduction, and network optimization.
Telemetry can be applied to the data plane, control plane and
management plane. There have been various methods proposed for each
plane:
o Management plane: For example, SNMP (Simple Network Management
Protocol) [RFC1157], NETCONF (Network Configuration Protocol)
[RFC6241] and gNMI (gRPC Network Management Interface)
[I-D.openconfig-rtgwg-gnmi-spec] are three typical widely adopted
management plane Telemetry approaches. Various YANG modules are
defined for network operational state retrieval and configuration
management. Subscription to specific YANG datastore can be
realized in combination with gRPC/NETCONF.
o Data plane: For example, In-situ OAM (iOAM)
[I-D.brockners-inband-oam-requirements] embeds an instruction
header to the user data packets, and collects the requested data
and adds it to the use packet at each network node along the
forwarding path. Applications such as path verification, SLA
(service-level agreement) assurance can be enabled with iOAM.
o Control Plane: BGP monitoring protocol (BMP) [RFC7854] is proposed
to monitor BGP sessions and intended to provide a convenient
interface for obtaining BGP route views. Date collected using BMP
can be further analyzed with big data platforms for network health
condition visualization, diagnose and prediction applications.
The general idea of most Telemetry approaches is to collect various
information from devices and export to the centralized server for
further analysis, and thus providing more network insight. It should
not be surprising that any future and even current Telemetry
applications may require the fusion of data acquired from more than
one single approach/one single plane. For example, for network
troubleshooting purposes, it requires the collection of comprehensive
information from devices, such system ID/router ID, interface status,
PDUs (protocol data units), device/protocol statistics and so on.
Information such as system ID/router ID can be reported by management
plane Telemetry approaches, while the protocol related data
(especially PDUs) are more fit to be monitored using the control
plane Telemetry. With rich information collected in real time at the
centralized server, network issues can be localized faster and more
accurately, and the root cause analysis can be also provided.
Gu, et al. Expires August 23, 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Network Monitoring For IGP February 2021
The conventional troubleshooting logic is to log in a faulty router,
physically or through Telnet, and by using CLI to display related
information/logs for fault source localization and further analysis.
There are several concerns with the conventional troubleshooting
methods:
1. It requires rich OAM experience for the OAM operator to know what
information to check on the device, and the operation is complex;
2. In a multi-vendor network, it requires the understanding and
familiarity of vendor specific operations and configurations;
3. Locating the fault source device could be non-trivial work, and
is often realized through network-wide device-by-device check, which
is both time-consuming and labor-consuming; and finally,
4. The acquisition of troubleshooting data can be difficult under
some cases, e.g., when auto recovery is used.
This document proposes the network monitoring for IGP to monitor the
running state of IGP, e.g., PDUs, protocol statistics and peer
status, which have not been systematically covered by any other
Telemetry approach, to facilitate network troubleshooting.
1.2. Overview
Like BMP, a networking monitoring session is established between each
monitored router (NM client) and the NM monitoring station (NM
server) through TCP connection. Information are collected directly
from each monitored router and reported to the NM server. The NM
message can be both periodic and event-triggered, depending on the
message type.
IS-IS [RFC1195], as one of the most commonly adopted network layer
protocols, builds the fundamental network connectivity of an
autonomous system (AS). The disfunction of IS-IS, e.g., IS-IS
neighbor down, route flapping, MTU mismatch, and so on, could lead to
network-wide instability and service interruption. Thus, it is
critical to keep track of the health condition of IS-IS, and the
availability of information, related to IS-IS running status, is the
fundamental requirement. In this document, typical network issues
are identified as the use cases of network monitoring. Then the
operations and the message formats of network monitoring for IS-IS
are defined. Network monitoring for OSPF will be included in the
future version.
Gu, et al. Expires August 23, 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Network Monitoring For IGP February 2021
2. Terminology
IGP: Interior Gateway Protocol
IS-IS: Intermediate System to Intermediate System
NM: Network Monitoring
IMP: Network Monitoring for IGP
BMP: BGP monitoring protocol
IIH: IS-IS Hello Packet
LSP: Link State Packet
CSNP: Complete Sequence Number Packet
NSNP: Partial Sequence Number Packet
3. Use Cases
We have identified two typical network issues due to IS-IS
disfunction that are currently difficult to detect or localize.
3.1. IS-IS Route Flapping
The IS-IS Route Flapping refers to the situation that one or more
routes appear and then disappear in the routing table repeatedly.
Route flapping usually comes with massive PDUs interactions (e.g.,
LSP, LSP purge...), which consume excessive network bandwidth, and
excessive CPU processing. In addition, the impact is often network-
wide. The localizing of the flapping source and the identifying of
root causes haven't been easy work due to various reasons.
The flapping can be caused by system ID conflict, IS-IS neighborship
flapping, route source flapping (caused by import route policy
misconfiguration) , device clock dis-function with abnormal LSP purge
(e.g., 100 times faster) and so on.
o The system ID conflict check is a network-wide work. If such
information is collected centrally to a controller/server, the
issues can be identified in seconds, and more importantly, in
advance of the actual flapping event.
o The IS-IS neighborship flapping is typically caused by interface
flapping, BFD flapping, CPU high and so on. Conventionally, to
located the issue, operators typically identify the target
Gu, et al. Expires August 23, 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Network Monitoring For IGP February 2021
device(s), and then log in the devices to check related
statistics, parsed protocol PDU data and configurations. The
manual check often requires a combination of multiple CLIs (check
cost/next hop/exit interface/LSP age...) in a repeated manner,
which is time-consuming and requires rich OAM experience. If such
statistics and configuration data were collected at the server in
real-time, the server may analyze them automatically or semi-
automatically with troubleshooting algorithms implemented at the
server.
o In the case that route policies are misconfigured, which then
causes the route flapping, it's typically difficult to directly
identify the responsible policy in a short time. Thus, if the
route change history is recorded in correlation with the route
policy, then with such record collected at the server, the server
can directly identify the responsible policy with the one-to-one
mapping between policy processing and the route attribute change.
o In the case that flapping comes with abnormal LSP purges, it may
be due to continuous LSP corruptions with falsified shorter
Remaining Lifetime, or the clock running 100 times faster with 100
times more purge LSPs generated. In order to identify the purge
originator, RFC 6232 [RFC6232] proposes to carry the Purge
Orginator Identification (POI) TLV in IS-IS. However, to analyze
the root cause of such abnormal purges, the collection and
analysis of LSP PDUs are needed.
3.2. IS-IS LSDB Synchronization Failure
During the IS-IS flooding, sometimes the LSP synchronization failure
happens. The synchronization failure causes can be generally
classified into three cases:
o Case 1, the LSP is not correctly advertised. For example, an LSP
sent by Router A fails to be synchronized at Router B. It can be
due to incorrect route export policy, or too many prefixes being
advertised which exceeds the LSP/MTU threshold, and so on at
Router A.
o Case 2, LSP transmission error, which is typically caused by IS-IS
adjacency failure, .e.g., link down/BFD down/authentication
failure.
o Case 3, the LSP is received but not correctly processed. The
problem that happens at Router B can be faulty route import
policy, or Router B being in Overload mode, or the hardware/
software bugs.
Gu, et al. Expires August 23, 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Network Monitoring For IGP February 2021
With sufficient ISIS PDU related statistics and parsed PDU
information recorded at the device, the neighborship failure in Case
2 can be typically diagnosed at Router A or Router B independently.
With such diagnosing information collected (e.g., in the format of
reason code) in real-time, the server can identify the root
synchronization issue with much less time and labor consumption
compared with conventional methods. In Case 1 & 3, the failure is
mostly caused by incorrect route policy and software/hardware issue.
By comparing the LSDB with the sent/received LSP, differences can be
recognized. Then the difference may further guide the localization
of the root cause. Thus, by collecting the LSDBs and sent/received
LSPs from the two affected neighbors, the server can have more
insights at the synchronization failure.
4. Message Format
4.1. Protocol Selection Options
Regarding the network monitoring data export, BMP has been a good
option. First of all, BMP serves similar purposes of network
monitoring for IGP that reports routes, route statistics and peer
status. In addition, BMP has already been implemented in major
vendor devices and utilized by operator.
4.2. Message Types
The variety of IS-IS troubleshooting use cases requires a systematic
information report of network monitoring, so that the NM server or
any third party analyzer could efficiently utilize the reported
messages to localize and recover various network issues. We define
NM messages for IS-IS uses the following types:
o Initiation Message: A message used for the monitored device to
inform the NM monitoring station of its capabilities, vendor,
software version and so on. For example, the link MTU can be
included within the message. The initiation message is sent once
the TCP connection between the monitoring station and monitored
router is set up. During the monitoring session, any change of
the initiation message could trigger an Initiation Message update.
o Adjacency Status Change Notification Message: A message used to
inform the NM monitoring station of the adjacency status change of
the monitored device, i.e., from up to down, from down/initiation
to up, with possible alarms/logs recorded in the device. This
message notifies the NM server of the ongoing IS-IS adjacency
change event and possible reasons. If no reason is provided or
the provided reason is not specific enough, the NM server can
further analyze the IS-IS PDU or the IS-IS statistics.
Gu, et al. Expires August 23, 2021 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Network Monitoring For IGP February 2021
o Statistic Report Message: A message used to report the statistics
of the ongoing IS-IS process at the monitored device. For
example, abnormal LSP count of the monitored device can be a sign
of route flapping. This message can be sent periodically or event
triggered. If sent periodically, the frequency can be configured
by the operator depending on the monitoring requirement. If it's
event triggered, it could be triggered by a counter/timer
exceeding the threshold.
o IS-IS PDU Monitoring Message: A message used to update the NM
server of any PDU sent from and received at the monitored device.
For example, the IIHs collected from two neighbors can be used for
analyzing the adjacency set up failure issue. The LSPs collected
from two neighbors can be analyzed for the LSP synchronization
issue.
o Termination Message: A message for the monitored router to inform
the monitoring station of why it is closing the NM session. This
message is sent when the monitoring session is to be closed.
4.3. Message Format
4.3.1. Common Header
The common header is encapsulated in all messages of network
monitoring for IGP. It includes the Version, Message Length and
Message Type fields. The common header can reuse the common header
of BMP and new message types should defined for IGP monitoring.
o Type = TBD: Adjacency Status Change Notification
o Type = TBD: ISIS Statistic Report
o Type = TBD: IS-IS PDU Monitoring
4.3.2. Per Adjacency Header
Except the Initiation and Termination Message, all the rest messages
are per adjacency based. Thus, a per adjacency header is defined as
follows.
Gu, et al. Expires August 23, 2021 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Network Monitoring For IGP February 2021
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Reserved |CT| Neighbor System ID |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Neighbor System ID |
+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| Neighbor Area ID | |
+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| Timestamp (seconds) |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Timestamp (microseconds) |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
o Adjacency Flag (2 bytes): The Circuit Type (2 bits) flag specifies
if the router is an L1(01), L2(10), or L1/L2(11). If both bits
are zeroes (00), the Per Adjacency Header SHALL be ignored. This
configuration is used when the statistic is not per-adjacency
based, e.g., when reporting the number of adjacencies.
o Neighbor System ID (6 bytes): identifies the system ID of the
remote router.
o Neighbor Area ID (2 bytes): identifies the area ID of the remote
router.
o Timestamp (4 bytes): records the time when the message is sent/
received, expressed in seconds and microseconds since midnight
(zero hour), January 1, 1970 (UTC).
4.3.3. Initiation Message
Three new types of Router Capability TLVs should be defined for IGP
monitoring:
o Type = TBD: Local System ID. The corresponding Router Capability
Value field SHALL indicate the router's System ID
o Type = TBD: Link MTU. The corresponding Router Capability Value
field SHALL indicate the router's link MTU.
4.3.4. Adjacency Status Change Notification
The Adjacency Status Change Notification Message indicates an IS-IS
adjacency status change: from up to down or from initiation/down to
up. It consists of the Common Header, Per Adjacency Header and the
Reason TLV. The Notification is triggered whenever the status
Gu, et al. Expires August 23, 2021 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Network Monitoring For IGP February 2021
changes. The Reason TLV is optional, and is defined as follows.
More Reason types can be defined if necessary.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| Reserved |S| Reason Type | Reason Length |
+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
+ Reason Value (variable) +
~ ~
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
o Reason Flags (1 byte): The S flag (1 bit) indicates if the
Adjacency status is from up to down (set to 0) or from down/
initial to up (set to 1). The rest bits of the Flag field are
reserved. When the S flag is set to 1, the Reason Type SHALL be
set to all zeroes (i.e., Type 0), the Reason Length fields SHALL
be set to all zeroes, and the Reason Value field SHALL be set
empty.
o Reason Type (1 byte): indicates the possible reason that caused
the adjacency status change. Currently defined types are:
* Type = 0: Adjacency Up. This type indicates the establishment
of an adjacency. For this reason type, the S flag MUST be set
to 1, indicating it's a adjacency-up event. There's no further
reason to be provided. The reason Length field SHALL be set to
all zeroes, and the Reason Value field SHALL be set empty.
* Type = 1: Circuit Down. For this data type, the S flag MUST be
set to 0, indicating it's a adjacency-down event. The length
field is set to all zeroes, and the value field is set empty.
* Type = 2: Memory Low. For this data type, the S flag MUST be
set to 0, indicating it's a adjacency-down event. The length
field is set to all zeroes, and the value field is set empty.
* Type = 3: Hold timer expired. For this data type, the S flag
MUST be set to 0, indicating it's a adjacency-down event. The
length field is set to all zeroes, and the value field is set
empty.
* Type = 4: String. For this data type, the S flag MUST be set
to 0, indicating it's a adjacency-down event. The
corresponding Reason Value field indicates the reason specified
by the monitored router in a free-form UTF-8 string whose
length is given by the Reason Length field.
Gu, et al. Expires August 23, 2021 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Network Monitoring For IGP February 2021
o Reason Length (2 bytes): indicates the length of the Reason Value
field.
o Reason Value (variable): includes the possible reason why the
Adjacency is down.
4.3.5. ISIS Statistic Report Message
The ISIS Statistic Report Message reports the statistics of the
parameters that are of interest to the operator. The message
consists of the Common Header, the Per Adjacency Header and the
Statistic TLV. The message include both per-adjacency based
statistics and non per- adjacency based statistics. For example, the
received/sent LSP counts are per-adjacency based statistics, and the
local LSP change times count and the number of established
adjacencies are non per- adjacency based statistics. For the non
per-adjacency based statistics, the CT Flag (2 bits) in the Per
Adjacency Header MUST be set to 00. Upon receiving any message with
CT flag set to 00, the Per Adjacency Header SHALL be ignored (the
total length of the Per Adjacency Header is 18 bytes as defined in
Section 3.2.2, and the message reading/analysis SHALL resume from the
Statistic TLV part.
The Statistic TLV is defined as follows.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Reserved |T| Statistic Type| Statistic Length |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Statistic Value |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
o Statistic Flags (1 byte): provides information for the reported
statistics.
* T flag (1 bit): indicates if the statistic is for the received-
from direction (set to 1) or sent-to direction the neighbor
(set to 0)
o Statistic Type (1 byte): specifies the statistic type of the
counter. Currently defined types are:
* Type = 0: IIH count. The T flag indicates if it's a sent or
received Hello PDU. It is a per-adjacency based statistic
type, and the CT flag in the Per Adjacency Header MUST NOT be
set to 00.
Gu, et al. Expires August 23, 2021 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Network Monitoring For IGP February 2021
* Type = 1: Incorrect IIH received count. For this type, the T
flag MUST be set to 1. It is a per-adjacency based statistic
type, and the CT flag in the Per Adjacency Header MUST NOT be
set to 00.
* Type = 2: LSP count. The T flag indicates if it's a sent or
received LSP. It is a per-adjacency based statistic type, and
the CT flag in the Per Adjacency Header MUST NOT be set to 00.
* Type = 3: Incorrect LSP received count. For this type, the T
flag MUST be set to 1. It is a per-adjacency based statistic
type, and the CT flag in the Per Adjacency Header MUST NOT be
set to 00.
* Type = 4: Retransmitted LSP count. For this type, the T flag
MUST be set to 0. It is a per-adjacency based statistic type,
and the CT flag in the Per Adjacency Header MUST NOT be set to
00.
* Type = 5: CSNP count. The T flag indicates if it's a sent or
received CSNP. It is a per-adjacency based statistic type, and
the CT flag in the Per Adjacency Header MUST NOT be set to 00.
* Type = 6: PSNP count. The T flag indicates if it's a sent or
received PSNP. It is a per-adjacency based statistic type, and
the CT flag in the Per Adjacency Header MUST NOT be set to 00.
* Type = 7: Number of established adjacencies. It's a non per-
adjacency based statistic type, and thus for the monitoring
station to recognize this type, the CT flag in the Per
Adjacency Header MUST be set to 00.
* Type = 8: LSP change time count. It's a non per-adjacency
based statistic type, and thus for the monitoring station to
recognize this type, the CT flag in the Per Adjacency Header
MUST be set to 00.
o Statistic Length (2 bytes): indicates the length of the Statistic
Value field.
o Statistic Value (4 bytes): specifies the counter value, which is a
non-negative integer.
4.3.6. IS-IS PDU Monitoring Message
The IS-IS PDU Monitoring Message is used to update the monitoring
station of any PDU sent from and received at the monitored device per
neighbor. Following the Common Header and the Per Adjacency Header
Gu, et al. Expires August 23, 2021 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Network Monitoring For IGP February 2021
is the IS-IS PDU. To tell whether it's a sent or received PDU, the
monitoring station can analyze the source and destination addresses
in the reported PDUs.
4.3.7. Termination Message
This document does not change the Termination Message defined by
RFC7854.
5. IANA
TBD
6. Contributors
TBD
7. Acknowledgments
TBD
8. References
[I-D.brockners-inband-oam-requirements]
Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., Dara, S., Pignataro, C.,
Gredler, H., Leddy, J., Youell, S., Mozes, D., Mizrahi,
T., Lapukhov, P., and r. remy@barefootnetworks.com,
"Requirements for In-situ OAM", draft-brockners-inband-
oam-requirements-03 (work in progress), March 2017.
[I-D.chen-npm-use-cases]
Chen, H., Li, Z., Xu, F., Gu, Y., and Z. Li, "Network-wide
Protocol Monitoring (NPM): Use Cases", draft-chen-npm-use-
cases-00 (work in progress), March 2019.
[I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-push]
Clemm, A. and E. Voit, "Subscription to YANG Datastores",
draft-ietf-netconf-yang-push-25 (work in progress), May
2019.
[I-D.openconfig-rtgwg-gnmi-spec]
Shakir, R., Shaikh, A., Borman, P., Hines, M., Lebsack,
C., and C. Morrow, "gRPC Network Management Interface
(gNMI)", draft-openconfig-rtgwg-gnmi-spec-01 (work in
progress), March 2018.
Gu, et al. Expires August 23, 2021 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Network Monitoring For IGP February 2021
[I-D.song-ntf]
Song, H., Zhou, T., Li, Z., Fioccola, G., Li, Z.,
Martinez-Julia, P., Ciavaglia, L., and A. Wang, "Toward a
Network Telemetry Framework", draft-song-ntf-02 (work in
progress), July 2018.
[RFC1157] Case, J., Fedor, M., Schoffstall, M., and J. Davin,
"Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)", RFC 1157,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1157, May 1990,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1157>.
[RFC1195] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and
dual environments", RFC 1195, DOI 10.17487/RFC1195,
December 1990, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1195>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC6232] Wei, F., Qin, Y., Li, Z., Li, T., and J. Dong, "Purge
Originator Identification TLV for IS-IS", RFC 6232,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6232, May 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6232>.
[RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
(NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.
[RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and
S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and
Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.
[RFC7854] Scudder, J., Ed., Fernando, R., and S. Stuart, "BGP
Monitoring Protocol (BMP)", RFC 7854,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7854, June 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7854>.
Authors' Addresses
Gu, et al. Expires August 23, 2021 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Network Monitoring For IGP February 2021
Yunan Gu
Huawei
156 Beiqing Road
Beijing, 100095
China
Email: guyunan@huawei.com
Shuanglong Chen
Huawei
156 Beiqing Road
Beijing,100095
China
Email: chenshuanglong@huawei.com
Yingzhen Qu
Futurewei
United States
Email: yingzhen.qu@futurewei.com
Huanan Chen
China Telecom
109 West Zhongshan Ave
Guangzhou
China
Email: chenhuanan@189.com
Zhenbin Li
Huawei
156 Beiqing Road
Beijing, 100095
China
Email: lizhenbin@huawei.com
Gu, et al. Expires August 23, 2021 [Page 15]
