Re: [Dots] WGLC Signal: mid=123 then overlapping mid=122

["Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy" <[e-mail]>]

It is not complete, I don’t see any conflict-status (e.g. active mitigation request withdrawn upon DOTS signal channel session loss and mitigation is triggered for the pre-configured scope) ?

-Tiru

From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, August 6, 2018 1:50 PM
To: Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy <[e-mail]>; Jon Shallow <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [Dots] WGLC Signal: mid=123 then overlapping mid=122


CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.


________________________________
Re-,

Trying to conclude on this one:

NEW:


   For example, if the DOTS server receives a mitigation request which

   overlaps with an existing mitigation with a higher numeric 'mid', the

   DOTS server rejects the request by returning 4.09 (Conflict) to the

   DOTS client.  The response includes enough information for a DOTS

   client to recognize the source of the conflict as described below:



   conflict-information:  Indicates that a mitigation request is

      conflicting with another mitigation request.  This optional

      attribute has the following structure:



      conflict-cause:  Indicates the cause of the conflict.  The

         following values are defined:



         1:  Overlapping targets. 'conflict-scope' provides more details

             about the conflicting target clauses.



      conflict-scope:  Indicates the conflict scope.  It may include a

         list of IP addresses, a list of prefixes, a list of port

         numbers, a list of target protocols, a list of FQDNs, a list of

         URIs, a list of alias-names, or a 'mid'.

(the YANG module will be updated accordingly).

Cheers,
Med

De : Dots [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy
Envoyé : lundi 6 août 2018 10:11
À : Jon Shallow; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Objet : Re: [Dots] WGLC Signal: mid=123 then overlapping mid=122

Inline [TR1]

From: Jon Shallow <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Monday, August 6, 2018 1:26 PM
To: Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [Dots] WGLC Signal: mid=123 then overlapping mid=122


CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.


________________________________
Hi Tiru,

Please see inline Jon>

Regards

Jon

From: Dots [mailto: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>] On Behalf Of Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy
Sent: 06 August 2018 04:08
To: Jon Shallow; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Dots] WGLC Signal: mid=123 then overlapping mid=122

Hi Jon,

Please see inline [TR]

From: Dots <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Jon Shallow
Sent: Saturday, August 4, 2018 5:28 PM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: [Dots] WGLC Signal: mid=123 then overlapping mid=122


CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.


________________________________
Hi there,

What happens when we receive mid=123, followed by mid=122 that overlaps mid=123?

Do we put mid=122 into an active-but-terminating state?
- state 5 is not really correct here as per the description

[TR] In the previous threads we have already discussed to add new conflict-status for conflicting mitigation requests from the same DOTS client (e.g. conflict-status MSB set to 1 means conflict from different DOTS clients, MSB set to 0 means conflict from the same DOTS client).
Jon> I may have blinked, but do not recall this particular discussion about using MSB and therefor needs to get into the draft.  An alternative is to have a different variable for same/different DOTS client.

[TR1] Both options look okay, I like the MSB approach ☺

-Tiru

The mitigation request with mid=122 will be rejected with 4.09 conflict. I don’t get your comment, why put mid=122 into active-but-terminating state ?
Jon> This potential option of what to return was written before we focused in on the single case for active-but-terminating.

Do we return 4.09 conflict with an appropriate (perhaps new) conflict-status ?

[TR] Yes

- my preference, but this is not said anywhere I can find

[TR] we will update the draft.
Jon> Thanks

- should conflict-scope also include the ‘mid’ in the list (YANG)?

[TR] Yes, including mid can help troubleshooting.
Jon> Please include it in the draft.
~Jon

Do we return 4.00 (bad request)?

[TR] No.

-Tiru

- I do not really like this one as there is no indication as to why – especially of there was an out of sequence packet arrival at the DOTS server.

Regards

Jon