IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Gen-art] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-06

Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com> Mon, 16 April 2018 07:46 UTC

Return-Path: <zhoutianran@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC82B1241F8; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 00:46:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ybKt9J3wdMsB; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 00:46:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 655331205D3; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 00:46:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml705-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.106]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 18D2650839812; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 08:46:00 +0100 (IST)
Received: from NKGEML411-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.70) by lhreml705-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.46) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.382.0; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 08:45:54 +0100
Received: from NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com ([fe80::a54a:89d2:c471:ff]) by nkgeml411-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.70]) with mapi id 14.03.0361.001; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 15:45:47 +0800
From: Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com>
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
CC: "Joel M. Halpern" <joel@stevecrocker.com>, heasley <heas@shrubbery.net>, li zhenqiang <li_zhenqiang@hotmail.com>, "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community.all@ietf.org>, opsawg <opsawg@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-06
Thread-Index: AQHT0zX1x60GZaZE206pZAQJbOzf56QBe9sAgAAGZYCAATo/QP//heIAgAC/6OA=
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 07:45:46 +0000
Message-ID: <BBA82579FD347748BEADC4C445EA0F21A6D62F14@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <152363066886.26321.3212300538180273898@ietfa.amsl.com> <HKXPR0601MB1799868866AF89F9699EAF28FCB10@HKXPR0601MB1799.apcprd06.prod.outlook.com> <20180415160956.GC66082@shrubbery.net> <ace47a71-0e9d-6a0d-ae37-1f4bc48ada0b@stevecrocker.com> <BBA82579FD347748BEADC4C445EA0F21A6D62DC8@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com> <m2d0yzol5v.wl-randy@psg.com>
In-Reply-To: <m2d0yzol5v.wl-randy@psg.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.156.116]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/-JKjgDyJv-JMBb5ulUnwcWB2ZPk>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-06
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 07:46:08 -0000

> iff i can select which community's or communities' values form the sampling
> bucket(s), this seems reasonable.  if i am community transparent, i probably
> don't want a bucket for each community on my inbound set.

Yes, this sounds better. It can be achieved by configuring the intermediate process as in RFC6183. 
This could be a more reasonable use case for the new IE.

Tianran

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email