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

["Jon Shallow" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Med,

 

This looks good to me.

 

Regards

 

Jon

 

From: Dots [mailto: [e-mail]] On Behalf Of [e-mail]
Sent: 06 August 2018 09:20
To: Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy; Jon Shallow; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Dots] WGLC Signal: mid=123 then overlapping mid=122

 

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

 

Inline [TR1]

 

From: Jon Shallow <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Monday, August 6, 2018 1:26 PM
To: Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy <[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.

  _____  

Hi Tiru,

 

Please see inline Jon>

 

Regards

 

Jon

 

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

 

Hi Jon,

 

Please see inline [TR] 

 

From: Dots <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Jon Shallow
Sent: Saturday, August 4, 2018 5:28 PM
To: [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 J

 

-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