Re: [Dots] Signal / Data / Alias / Filter Implementation

 > The intent of DOTS is NOT to re-create flowspec.

Yes, I agree.

 > Getting into layer-4 traffic descriptors, including things like non-initial fragments, is re-creating flowspec and IPFIX.  We don't intend to do that.

 From ISP operator's perspective, DDoS mitigation includes RTBH, ACL, flowspec, dedicated box and cloud-type of service etc,..
As for flowspec, opening flowspec interface to other organizations is equal to passing responsibilities to other people, but DOTS is not.
DOTS should be able to cover the same problem space of flowspec in a safer manner, so giving layer-4 traffic information in data-channel is realistic for me.

thanks,
Kaname

On 2017/08/03 17:04, Roland Dobbins wrote:
> On 3 Aug 2017, at 14:56, Jon Shallow wrote:
>
>> I am of the firm opinion that destination-ip is REQUIRED
>
> The intent of DOTS is NOT to re-create flowspec.
>
> It's to signal the need for DDoS mitigation.
>
> 'Taking out someone else's IP' is not a concern of DOTS itself; this has to do with the provisioning of the DOTS clients, servers, and associated detection/classification/traceback/mitigation systems.
>
> Getting into layer-4 traffic descriptors, including things like non-initial fragments, is re-creating flowspec and IPFIX.  We don't intend to do that.
>
> -----------------------------------
> Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@arbor.net>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dots mailing list
> Dots@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots