Re: [Idr] One question about "Terminal Action bit" in RFC5575

Hi Sandy,

>
2, What’s the benefit of "Terminal Action bit"?

The meaning of this flag was to indicate requirement analogy of "continue"
statement when executing your traffic filtering actions on the matched
traffic. Example - you may want to redirect to a vrf with or without
remarking the traffic with different. Not really much more to it.

Best regards,
R.

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 10:34 AM, <zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn> wrote:

>
> Hi Christoph,
>
>     Thank you very much for your response. Glad to hear that the RFC
> will be revised Clearly.
>
>     From your specification, I have two questions for it:
>
> 1, If it is valid that define the same action with different
> values in one same rule?
>
> 
> 2, What’s the benefit of "Terminal Action bit"? I think that your
> action merging may be one of the solutions. But the network manager
> cannot get the result from the same rule directly. It may cause the
> confusion of network manager, isn't it?
>
> Thanks,
> Sandy
>
> Christoph Loibl <c@tix.at> 写于 2016/12/14 18:58:53:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Your example perfectly makes sense to me, and I understand that
> > there are several sections in RFC5575 that are a little unclear.
> > RFC5575 does not explain what should happen in your case, nor does
> > it explain anything in case of action-interference.
> >
> > This is why we currently working on a rfc557bis that should help us
> > to fix those problems and improve interoperability for flowspec.
> > Have a look at:
> >
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hr-idr-rfc5575bis/
> > Section 7.6. Rules on Traffic Action Interference
> >
> > During writing this section we were actually discussing single
> > flowspec NLRIs with conflicting actions like:
> >
> > rule 1
> >     traffic-rate: 10Mbps
> >     traffic-rate: 20Mbps
> >
> > or
> >
> > rule 1
> >    redirect: A
> >    redirect: B
> >
> > I think we shall extend this section to also explain your case.
> > Currently this is not explained even in our submitted draft draft-
> > hr-idr-rfc5575bis latest revision. In that case it may make sense to
>
> > have a "latest" action wins behaviour. I suggest the following
> > behaviour (this is nowhere written yet):
>
> >
> > Suggestion: In your example the action for a flow matching all your
> > rules should be a merge of rule 1 and rule 2:
> >
> > rule 1
> >
> >    traffic-rate: 10Mbps
> >
> >    traffic-marking: DSCP=10
> >
> >    traffic-action: T=1 S=1
>
> >
> > after this rule 2 gets applied
> >
> >
> > rule 2
> >
> >    traffic-rate: 20Mbps
> >
> >    redirect: nexthop = 192.168.1.2
> >
> >    traffic-action: T=0 S=0
>
> >
> > The resulting action for that flow is:
> >
> >     traffic-rate: 20Mbps
> >     traffic-marking: DSCP=10
> >     redirect: nexthop = 192.168.1.2
> >
> > Since on the second rule the terminal-bit is 0 there is no other
> > rule to be evaluated.
> >
> > To the "latest" applied action wins. However this is only one
> > suggested behaviour. There are plenty of other options. It should
> > also be considered that implementing such a behaviour may not be trivial.
> >
> > Christoph
> >
> > On 14 Dec 2016, at 09:59, zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> >     About RFC5575, it seems like that the definition of "Terminal
> > Action bit" is blurred.
> >
> >     In section 7, the "Terminal Action bit" is defined as follows:
> > Terminal Action (bit 47): When this bit is set, the traffic filtering
> > engine will apply any subsequent filtering rules (as defined by the
> > ordering procedure).  If not set, the evaluation of the traffic filter
> > stops when this rule is applied.
> >
> >     How can routers do when many rules that define variant actions
> > are applied to a same flow?
> >
> >    For example, there are four rules that can be applied to one same
> flow.
> > And the sequence has been determined as below. When router executes rule
> 1,
> > the "Terminal Action Bit" is set. It indicated that next rule should be
> > executed. When router execute rule 2, which action should be executed?
> > Only redirect? Or/and traffic-marking? Which traffic-rate should be
> > selected?
> >
> > rule 1
> >
> >    traffic-rate: 10Mbps
> >
> >    traffic-marking: DSCP=10
> >
> >    traffic-action: T=1 S=1
> >
> >
> > rule 2
> >
> >    traffic-rate: 20Mbps
> >
> >    redirect: nexthop = 192.168.1.2
> >
> >    traffic-action: T=0 S=0
> >
> >
> > rule 3
> >
> >    traffic-rate: 30Mbps
> >
> >    traffic-marking: DSCP=30
> >
> >    redirect: nexthop = 192.168.2.2
> >
> >    traffic-action: T=1 S=1
> >
> >
> > rule 4
> >
> >    traffic-rate: 40Mbps
> >
> >    traffic-marking: DSCP=40
> >
> >    traffic-action: T=0 S=0
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Idr mailing list
> > Idr@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
> >
> > --
> > Christoph Loibl
> > c@tix.at | CL8-RIPE | PGP-Key-ID: 0x4B2C0055 | http://www.nextlayer.at
>