Re: [Idr] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-liang-idr-bgp-flowspec-time-00.txt

[Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]>]

Jianjie,

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 02:08:35AM +0000, Youjianjie wrote:
> This document proposes a new BGP path attribute called "Flow Extended Attribute", which carries expected valid period information for a FlowSpec rule.
> Could you please review? Your comments are welcome.

I've given some commentary on the time constraints later in the thread.

The description TLV is problematic for a few reasons:
0. Please use UTF-8 encoding for proposals rather than ASCII. :-)

1. They take space in the PDU.  In some cases we're getting close to packing
full BGP PDUs and I suspect the operational benefit of a description is low.
If you must use space for such things, consider some sort of 64-bit number
instead.  Community encoding may be more appropriate.

2. The scoping of this information is a bit too broad.  Especially in a DoS
mitigation context, do you *really* want to tell your downstreams the
information that's attached to the description?  The security ADs might call
this a privacy consideration.

-- Jeff