Re: [CDNi] New Internet Draft: draft-sopher-cdni-footprint-types-extensions

[Guillaume Bichot <[e-mail]>]

Hi Sanjay & Nir.


Here is the  statement from 8008 (Appendix B) : Multiple footprint constraints are additive: the advertisement of different footprint types narrows the dCDN's candidacy cumulatively.

Frankly, this is very strange that the statement is almost hidden in a kind of annex  whereas it could have been located in section 5 in a proper dedicated section.

Your proposal solves the issue but not completely. I guess nothing prevent me to add several footprint constraints of the same type like the example below. Strictly speaking, if I captured well that statement, we should end up with an empty list as well.



{

     "capabilities": [

       {

         "capability-type": <CDNI capability object type>,

         "capability-value": <CDNI capability object>,

         },

         "footprints": [

             {

                 "footprint-type": "ipv4cidr",

                 "footprint-value": ["192.0.20/24"].

             },

             {

                 "footprint-type": "ipv4cidr",

                 "footprint-value": [["192.0.21/24"]

             }

         ]

       }

     ]

   }



I have another proposal  that is the following: instead of creating a new footprint type that requires a change in RFC8006 as well, why not just changing that statement that looks strange and almost faulty.



-remove that faulty statement in Appendix B.

- create a new section 5.x about "footprints" and add a new statement (or just add that new statement in Appendix B) like the following:

"Several footprint constraints can be given of either the same type or not.   The uCDN MUST consider the resulting footprint as a set of geographical areas constrained with a set of IP address ranges if any. If several geographical areas overlap then the coverage zone corresponds to the cumulative areas."



Examples

-          E1: a set of address ranges

"ipv4cidr", ["192.0.2.0/24", "192.0.2.1/24"]

"ipv4cidr", ["192.0.2.2/28"]

"ipv6cidr", ["2001:db8::/32"]

-          E2: a set of geographical areas
"iso3166code", ["ca", us-ny]

-          E3: a mixed of geographical areas and address ranges

"ipv4cidr", ["192.0.2.0/24"]

"ipv6cidr", ["2001:db8::/32"]

-          "iso3166code", ["ca", "us-ny"]



Guillaume

Guillaume BICHOT, Principal Engineer, Head of Exploration
[phone] | [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>


From: CDNi [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Nir Sopher
Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2020 6:19 PM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: [E] [CDNi] New Internet Draft: draft-sopher-cdni-footprint-types-extensions

Hi,

We have submitted draft-sopher-cdni-footprint-types-extensions<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dsopher-2Dcdni-2Dfootprint-2Dtypes-2Dextensions_%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3DudBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ%26r%3DXniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM%26m%3DTs5uj_nZmoHgi7pPldjWKsDPgmeeiO_RkotsI8zZD-E%26s%3DoWZZ4TjWJsq7Ao899RmyOUwUgAjNYeVlksfkKAy-UeA%26e%3D&data=04%7C01%7Cguillaume.bichot%40broadpeak.tv%7Cf6b67a86cc4b44ff6b7a08d8a83b82a1%7C0ebe44eac9c9438da0407e699f358ed4%7C0%7C0%7C637444320869999346%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=YxIzX3bst5GAicrOxFI%2BqfRZYO65%2Fwh07pDTwoYrrJg%3D&reserved=0> that extends RFCs 8006/8008 in order to address the following issue:

  *   Sections 4.3.5 and 4.3.6 of [RFC8006] specify the "IPv4CIDR" and  "IPv6CIDR" footprint types, respectively, for listing IP addresses blocks.  Using Footprint Objects of these types, one can define an FCI Capability Advertisement Object footprint constraints that match IPv4 or IPv6 clients. Also as described in section 5 of RFC 8008, the FCI Capability Advertisement Object includes an array of such CDNI Footprint Objects. The array of Footprint Objects has a "narrowing" semantic that prevents the usage of IPv4/IPv6 objects together in order to create a footprint constraint that matches IPv4 clients together with IPv6 clients.

In the submitted draft:

  1.  We add a new usecase of dCDN advertising a footprint that consists of both IPv4 and IPv6 client addresses, by defining a new "IPv4v6CIDR" Footprint Type.
  2.  We also add support for ISO3166Code Footprint Type, based on ISO 3166 country codes and regions definition. This Footprint Type allows the dCDN to advertise a footprint based on a specific region, for example a state in the USA.
We would highly appreciate it if folks can review and provide any feedback.

Thanks and Happy Holidays,
Sanjay & Nir