Re: [Idr] [ALU] will draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip-02 be revived?

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> Tue, 29 June 2021 20:23 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 1A6923A07C0 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 13:23:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 Lfa1-x-wPRNY for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 13:23:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E11863A07B3 for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 13:23:05 -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 6C4E91E45A; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 16:49:10 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_614D05BA-6FA7-425F-9166-2E83049296E2"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.100.0.2.22\))
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
In-Reply-To: <BYAPR08MB4229C8B08CE234667C98E3359A029@BYAPR08MB4229.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2021 16:23:03 -0400
Cc: Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@futurewei.com>, "UTTARO, JAMES" <ju1738@att.com>, "akarch@cisco.com" <akarch@cisco.com>, "sairay@cisco.com" <sairay@cisco.com>, "pmohapat@cumulusnetworks.com" <pmohapat@cumulusnetworks.com>, "mtexier@arbor.net" <mtexier@arbor.net>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <26582AC9-85B3-422A-A57B-E05B06BE4AC6@pfrc.org>
References: <CO1PR13MB49208A4216C9C21FC026218285029@CO1PR13MB4920.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <BYAPR08MB4229C8B08CE234667C98E3359A029@BYAPR08MB4229.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
To: "Simpson, Adam 1. (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" <adam.1.simpson@nokia.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.100.0.2.22)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/7oKvNpdU4tZRGHEGIQwBWuSMaDk>
Subject: Re: [Idr] [ALU] will draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip-02 be revived?
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Tue, 29 Jun 2021 20:23:11 -0000

Matter of fact, there's an old mail chain in your inbox from me about trying to finish it off for RFC. :-)

I believe our assessment at the time was roughly:
- None of our implementations was implementing the 'copy' bit.
- Our implementations weren't quite in accord with the redirect to ip when also doing redirect to vrf.

I think it's mostly a matter of dusting of that thread and doing our implementation reports with all of the implementors and then adjusting for reality.

-- Jeff


> On Jun 29, 2021, at 2:48 PM, Simpson, Adam 1. (Nokia - US/Mountain View) <adam.1.simpson@nokia.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Linda,
>  
> I don’t think there is any great reason why we didn’t continue to refresh this draft and take it to RFC. At the time of the last update there was a lot of churn in the flowspec area with respect to work on the bis draft, flowpsec-v2 and the best way to specify interaction between multiple actions. So I guess you could say that we wanted the dust to settle a bit.
>  
> This draft can and should be revived. It would be good to understand from my co-authors the current status of implementations. I can say that Nokia has implemented this draft for both IPv4 and IPv6, but only the redirect functionality, not the copy functionality.
>  
> -Adam 
>  
> From: Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@futurewei.com>
> Date: Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 10:29 AM
> To: UTTARO, JAMES <ju1738@att.com>om>, Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>rg>, akarch@cisco.com <akarch@cisco.com>om>, sairay@cisco.com <sairay@cisco.com>om>, pmohapat@cumulusnetworks.com <pmohapat@cumulusnetworks.com>om>, Simpson, Adam 1. (Nokia - US/Mountain View) <adam.1.simpson@nokia.com>om>, mtexier@arbor.net <mtexier@arbor.net>
> Cc: idr@ietf.org <idr@ietf.org>
> Subject: [ALU] will draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip-02 be revived? 
> 
> Jim, Jeff, et al, 
>  
> Our https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mcd-rtgwg-extension-tn-aware-mobility/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mcd-rtgwg-extension-tn-aware-mobility/> needs to use Flowspec to influence the node (either on 5G UPF or directly connected to the 5GUPF) to steer a flow from 5G’s UPF to a specific underlay path based on the  5G services characteristics. 
>  
> The approach described in  draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip-02 are useful for our purpose.   But the draft has been expired.
>  
> Just curious if the  draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip-02 be revived? Were there any reasons the draft didn’t move forward?
>  
> Thank you very much 
> Linda Dunbar