Re: [Idr] Flowspec draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis last (known) issue that needs to be resolved

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> Fri, 15 February 2019 21:04 UTC

Return-Path: <jhaas@slice.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 EF4BF131065 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 13:04:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-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 HNcBaoCeeCYz for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 13:04:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0493D130FE4 for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 13:04:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 7C1A31E2F1; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 16:03:25 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 16:03:25 -0500
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
To: Christoph Loibl <c@tix.at>
Cc: idr wg <idr@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20190215210325.GA28950@pfrc.org>
References: <6FC8208F-DB08-4DE4-BFEB-518A806B11DB@tix.at> <20190125223507.GA10088@pfrc.org> <564B1465-427F-4D27-9153-ADC50EDA4F9E@tix.at>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <564B1465-427F-4D27-9153-ADC50EDA4F9E@tix.at>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/AhMjijFdxSfzK50kjcbolQsfS9Q>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Flowspec draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis last (known) issue that needs to be resolved
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: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 21:04:34 -0000

Christoph,

On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 09:05:21PM +0100, Christoph Loibl wrote:
> After reviewing the feedback that I received on my last mail regarding the draft rfc5575bis (on the list as well as from the authors and Jie). I propose the following changes to the draft regarding  "Section 7.6. Rules on Traffic Action Interference”:
> 
> *) Replace Section 7.6. Rules on Traffic Action Interference with the following:
> 
> <TEXT>
> 
> 7.6. Considerations on Traffic Action Interference
> 
> Since traffic actions are represented as BGP extended community values,
> traffic actions may interfere with each other (ie. there may be more then

than

> one conflicting traffic-rate action associated with a single 
> flow-filter). Traffic action interference has no impact on BGP propagation
> of flow filters (all communities should be propagated according to BGP policies). 
> 
> If a flow filter associated with interfering flow actions is selected for
> packet forwarding, it is a implementation decision which of the interfering 
> traffic action is selected. Implementors of this specification SHOULD 
> document the behaviour of their implementation in such cases.
> 
> Operators are encouraged to make use of the BGP policy framework 
> supported by their implementation in order to achieve a predictable behaviour 
> for their application (ie. match - replace - delete communities on 
> administrative boundaries).
> 
> </TEXT>
> 
> I will upload the changes soon if I receive no objections. However, I am happy to receive feedback on this.

I'm happy with this text.  Thanks!

-- Jeff