[Idr] WG Work item call - Opinions on work items (3/5/2016 to 3/17/2016) and adoption of draft-hares-idr-flowspec-combo-01.txt

"Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com> Sat, 05 March 2016 22:49 UTC

Return-Path: <shares@ndzh.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5EA21B381C for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 Mar 2016 14:49:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -94.358
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-94.358 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.793, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=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 PJWB8juAU2nB for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 Mar 2016 14:49:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hickoryhill-consulting.com (unknown [50.245.122.97]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ADD191B381B for <idr@ietf.org>; Sat, 5 Mar 2016 14:49:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=74.43.47.30;
From: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
To: idr@ietf.org
Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2016 17:48:40 -0500
Message-ID: <000b01d17731$29d17230$7d745690$@ndzh.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000C_01D17707.40FFFE10"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AdF3MOvE/JSvgLOkQ3a9MB8GleM7AQ==
Content-Language: en-us
X-Authenticated-User: skh@ndzh.com
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/5E1aISGi3RjddQuLmocaVdDEXaU>
Subject: [Idr] WG Work item call - Opinions on work items (3/5/2016 to 3/17/2016) and adoption of draft-hares-idr-flowspec-combo-01.txt
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2016 22:49:18 -0000

The interim on 3/7/2016 will have a discussion of revisions to the BGP Flow
specification (BGP-FS) to add more features.  There are two suggested
options:

1)      A minimal features to existing BGP-FS (option 1) 

Add a few new match filters to the BGP-FS NLRI and few new actions to the
BGP-FS actions (in Extended communities).  Actions would need to be done in
a defined order. Each new actions would need to define conflicts with
existing actions.   

 

Best use case:  DoS attack prevention 

 

2)      Create a BGP-FS version 2 (option 2) 

Create a new BGP-FS NLRI (v2) with a field that indicates the ordering of
the BGP NLRI.  Add new BGP-FS actions with an order field in the BGP Wide
Communities.  Filters are done in the order defined in the filter.  Actions
are done in the order defined in the actions.   Order numbers that tie are
handled in a defined order. 

 

Best use case: SDN/NFV filter management 

 

A write-up on the issues and proposed solutions is contained in: 

draft-hares-idr-flowspec-combo-01.txt.
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hares-idr-flowspec-combo/>    The WG
can select both option 1 and option 2.  This is a WG work item call for
input to the chairs on the scope of the WG item.  In you discussion of this
topics, the chairs would appreciate if you would indicate if you would
support IDR working on option 1, option 2 or both option 1 and 2.  This WG
call items also includes a call for draft-hares-idr-flowspec-combo-01.txt as
a write-up of the work-item options.  The WG may wish to split this draft
into multiple drafts. 

 

The following drafts are being consider for either option: 

1)      draft-eddy-idr-flowspec-packet-rate

2)      draft-hao-idr-flowspec-nv03

3)      draft-hao-idr-flowspec-label

4)      draft-liang-idr-bgp-flowspec-time

5)      draft-litowski-idr-flowspec-interfaceset 

6)      draft-vandevelde-idr-flowspec-path-redirect

7)      draft-li-idr-flowspec-rpd-01.txt 

8)      draft-wu-idr-flowspec-yang.cfg. 

 

If you wish to comment on any of these drafts, we will 

 

We will conclude the Call for WG opinions on 3/17/2016 so these authors can
have a day to revise and submit their drafts before the draft deadline. 

 

Sue Hares and John Scudder 

 

PS:

draft-li-idr-flowspec-rpd discusses limits on the distribution of the policy
which has been recast in draft-hares-idr-flowspec-combo as a bgp-wide
community of Container type 1 with an atom of BGP Flow Specification
ordering. However,  this draft is included in the list to be able to update
the mechanism from this draft into that context.  

 

The yang model for BGP Flow specification is also included in this work item
as it will need to be modified based on the approaches.  The yang model is
in draft-wu-idr-flowspec-yang-cfg.  In your comments, please indicate if you
feel these drafts or other drafts.