RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-tewg-measure-06.txt

["Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS" <gash@att.com>]

> >For example, in Section 2 "Conclusions & Recommendations", the 
> >very first requirement is:
> >
> >'(1) Requirements for specific TE measurements 
> >    
> >. Node-pair-based traffic data to derive per-service-class 
> >traffic matrix statistics, including statistics of carried 
> >load and offered load (Sections 3.3 and Appendix A) 
> >. Statistics of achieved performance and throughput (Section 3.4)
> >. A standardized method to detect and record label binding 
> >changes for LDP-signaled label-switched paths, at the 
> >ingress-egress pair level (Section 3.5)'
> >
> >Such a requirement is basic to operating any network, and 
> >allows a traffic matrix to be derived for purposes of 
> >engineering and management of the network.  Such a measurement 
> >*is not available in any MIB or protocol*.  It is a major 
> >problem in the engineering and management of IP-based networks 
> >today that such measurements are not available.  There are 
> >indirect work-arounds to this that are not altogether accurate 
> >or satisfactory, but there is no substitute for the actual 
> >measurements.  

> 	That is not entirely accurate. The IETF's IPFX WG is 
> standardizing the NetFlow protocol which can be used for 
> precisely this. It has been available in a proprietary form 
> from my company and others for several years now.

I believe it is accurate.

We are, of course, familiar with IPFX/NetFlow, and have used NetFlow for many years in AT&T.  NetFlow has its place, but does *not* satisfy the requirement for node-node measurements as called for in the I-D.

As Jim suggested, such measurements should perhaps be included in some (TE) MIB.  As you know, we have discussed that very issue with you in connection with this draft.  You even said at one point that you would provide some text describing how this could be done as a MIB enhancement, but you did not provide the text.  

As you know, we have requested such extensions be included in an appropriate MIB, and this has been discussed on the lists.  But again there has been no progress on that as yet.

Hopefully the TEM draft will advance the requirement into some MIB or protocol implementation.

Jerry