Re: [Idr] //Re: Status changes as of 6/21/2022

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> Thu, 23 June 2022 21:20 UTC

Return-Path: <jhaas@pfrc.org>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BF0BC15A72A for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jun 2022 14:20:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.907
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KjqHESkQa1HK for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jun 2022 14:19:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4D93C15A72B for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Jun 2022 14:19:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (99-59-193-67.lightspeed.livnmi.sbcglobal.net [99.59.193.67]) by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DCC0A1E345; Thu, 23 Jun 2022 17:19:57 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_4B6E0DA8-C845-4AA8-9072-0417DAD1734A"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.100.31\))
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAOj+MMEZjBePJg-aHkrh_eoMNrVBQrPjfy+6_cddf_ihvON60g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2022 17:19:58 -0400
Cc: 姜文颖 <jiangwenying@chinamobile.com>, Sue Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <0E6CEF37-0269-470A-A9C0-08378913EFDE@pfrc.org>
References: <2afb62b3c6aa924-00008.Richmail.00009090468066689577@chinamobile.com> <20220623193006.GA12085@pfrc.org> <CAOj+MMEZjBePJg-aHkrh_eoMNrVBQrPjfy+6_cddf_ihvON60g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.100.31)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/7kXyddH822NKQsHefINI9LR9roM>
Subject: Re: [Idr] //Re: Status changes as of 6/21/2022
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Thu, 23 Jun 2022 21:20:02 -0000

Robert,

Thanks for catching my error.  I should know better than to do such replies without a quick re-read of the document in question.  I had confused this with another of our many flowspec proposals we have in flight.

While I agree with you that this is one of the proposals that doesn't have to wait on flowspec v2 (yay!) it's also a good example of a document that discusses how forwarding interactions stack together and start becoming tricky to reconcile.  We'll probably have this discussion further in the "encoding of fsv2 actions" track of that work.

Wenying, my apologies for any confusion I may have caused.

-- Jeff


> On Jun 23, 2022, at 4:05 PM, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> wrote:
> 
> Hi Jeff, 
> 
> The way I read this proposal they do not require any new code point allocation to either flowspec v1 or v2. 
> 
> They instead took a clever idea to glue new functionality by next hop using existing redirect-to-ip functionality. 
> 
> So the draft is Informational and presents new functionality with no protocol extension required. 
> 
> Also that is confirmed in  the draft by either statement: 
> 
>    For the case that a flowspec route carries multiple Color Extend
>    Communities and/or a BGP Prefix SID Attribute, a protocol extension
>    to Flowspec is required, and is thus out of the scope of this
>    document.
> 
> & 
> 
> 6.  IANA Considerations
>     No IANA actions are required for this document.
> 
> So I am not sure what potential squating you are referring to here.
> 
> Many thx,
> Robert
> 
> PS . 
> 
> I do think some rewrite is needed to make the text more clear. For example statements like this: 
> 
>    This document proposes to carry the Color Extended Community and BGP
>    Prefix-SID Attribute in the context of a Flowspec NLRI [RFC8955]
>    [RFC8956] to an SRv6 Headend to steer traffic into one SRv6 policy,
>    as well as to indicate specific Tailend functions.
> 
> need to be reworded as they indeed make an illusion that new code points may be used. 
> While if I understand what authors meant to propose was to say instead "in the same UPDATE 
> message" not within the NLRI itself. 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 9:30 PM Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org <mailto:jhaas@pfrc.org>> wrote:
> Wenying,
> 
> Glad to hear you're having good experiences with work on your draft.
> 
> However, please remember two things as you take your work forward:
> - New features implemented in Flowspec v1 will cause session resets in
>   implementations that don't understand the new feature.
> - Please don't ship code that squats on an unallocated code point.  Not only
>   does this raise issues of session resets, but may cause issues as we start
>   having Flowspec v2 work make progress.  The code points for Flowspec v1 and
>   v2 are likely to be the same.
> 
> The IDR Chairs would encourage you to support moving Flowspec v2 work
> forward to help you safely and interoperably deploy the new feature.
> 
> -- Jeff
> 
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 09:51:57AM +0800, 姜文颖 wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > Hi Sue and WG,
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > draft-jiang-idr-ts-flowspec-srv6-policy has been presented at IETF#108/109/113 and got good feedback from WG. It has also been implemented by multiple vendors and successfully passed the joint interoperability test hosted  by China Mobile. We co-authors think that it is ready for WG adoption call. Would you please consider adding this document to the awaiting list of the adoption calls?
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > Wenying and co-authors
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org <mailto:Idr@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>