Re: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-17

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alvaro,

As I just sent to Sue offline I see we have good progress with IPv6
flowspec in the industry:

https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/example/example-configuring-bgp-to-carry-ipv6-flow-routes.html


https://docs.opendaylight.org/projects/bgpcep/en/latest/bgp/bgp-user-guide-flowspec-family.html#ipv6-flow-specification

https://support.huawei.com/enterprise/my/doc/EDOC1100058389/71596df5/configuring-dynamic-bgp-ipv6-flow-specification

https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/ios-xml/ios/iproute_bgp/configuration/xe-16/irg-xe-16-book/C3PL-BGP-Flowspec-Client.html

Not sure why IETF can not catch up :)

But I see the same with BGP Optimal Route Reflection and other drafts. We
have shipping implementations and still who knows why lack of IETF RFC
publishing the spec.

Thx,
R.

On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 2:53 PM Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi!
>
> To be clear about what I would like to see…
>
> Background: IPv6 support for flowspec was brought up in the IESG when
> rfc5575 was in the process of being published (10 years ago!).  At that
> time the IESG was promised a separate draft.  We’re now back to the IESG
> with an IPv4-only document, and no clear plan to provide IPv6
> functionality; I say “no clear plan” because draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6
> has been expired for over a year.
>
>
> I don’t want to go back to the IESG with rfc5575bis without a clear
> indication that the IPv6 work is moving along.  The minimum clear
> indication is a WGLC (of draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6)…. It may not stop the
> IESG from strongly asking about IPv6, but at least we can show progress.
>
> At the other end of the spectrum, we could go back to the IESG with IPv4
> and IPv6 support simultaneously…either in the form of rfc5575bis supporting
> both, or two separate drafts.  My read of the e-mail archive is that there
> has been no interest/consensus from the WG of including IPv6 functionality
> in rfc5575bis.  I am fine with that.  If the WG wants to revisit that
> decision, I’m ok with that too.
>
> In the end, what I’m asking the WG is for the minimum step to show
> progress. I’m sure that John/Jie (Chair/Shepherd) can decide what the best
> way forward is.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Alvaro,
>
>
> On September 12, 2019 at 6:38:12 AM, Susan Hares ([e-mail]) wrote:
>
> <WG chair hat on>
>
>
>
> Question:
>
> I understand why this document only focuses on IPv4.  While the text
> points at draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6, that draft has been expired for over
> a year!  What is the plan to move that work forward?  It looks like there
> may already be implementations in place [4].
>
>
>
> Answer:
>
> The direction from the WG was to limit the draft to RFC5575 fixes.
>
> If you feel strongly, this can be queried to the WG again.
>
>
>
> <WG chair off>
>
> <author hat on>
>
> If WG agrees, this could be added to the draft.
>
> </author hat off>
>
>
>
>