Re: [Idr] WG LC - draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-nvo3-12 - Technology only (2/4/2020 to 2/18/2020).

[Gyan Mishra <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Donald.

This document is ready for publication.

Thanks

Gyan

On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 1:18 PM Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Gyan,
>
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 1:32 AM Gyan Mishra <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Sue
> >
> > I support publication of this document as a standard RFC.
>
> Thanks for your support.
>
> > Since this document supports GRE, IP in IP and L2TPv3, even though the
> title states NVO3 overlays, should this draft really include all tunnel
> types described in tunnel-encap-22 that would be applicable to flow spec
> dissemination. If so the then maybe removal of NVO3 in the draft name and
> change to tunneled traffic maybe appropriate.
>
> For historic reasons, the file name of this draft has "-nvo3-" in it.
> The title of the document used to have NVO3 in it ("BGP Dissemination
> of Network Virtualization Overlays (NVO3) Flow Specification Rules").
> That was true of versions -00 through -06. However, with version -07
> the title was changed to "BGP Dissemination of Flow Specification
> Rules for Tunneled Traffic". It would, of course, be possible to
> change the file name but the version number would have to be reset to
> 00 which might be misleading.
>
> The only tunnel type specifically listed in
> draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-22 that is not in
> draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-nvo3-12 is MPLS-in-GRE. I'm not sure that is
> needed as such. Certainly someone could generate DoS traffic at the
> GRE level that said it has MPLS inside the GRE. Some modification of
> flowspec-nvo3 to accommodate this would probably be a good idea but
> there isn't any matching of MPLS stacks in any of BGP flowspec
> currently. So, I think some improvement in the GRE tunnel provisions
> in flowspec-nvo3 but I don't think taking on flowspec matching on MPLS
> stacks is warranted.
>
> Thanks,
> Donald
> ===============================
>  Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   [phone] (cell)
>  2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
>  [e-mail]
>
> > 1.) Does WG to standardize this technology with
> >
> >     the IPR Statement (which appeared in 5/8/2020 after a modification
> of the draft)?
> >
> >  Yes
> >
> > 2) Is this approach to flow-specification for tunnels ready for
> standardization?
> >
> >  Yes
> >
> > 3) Would this technology inter-work with tunnels created by
> >
> >  draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encap-22.txt?
> >
> >  Yes.  I think it is very important for this document to support the
> tunnel encap draft NVO overlay encapsulations.
> >
> > 4) Should this technology wait for a flow-specification v2?
> >
> > I don’t think so.  As we are proceeding with modified WG LC without any
> implementations i think in that light we can proceed to publish and not
> wait for flow spec v2.  At that time we can always to an bis update if
> needed to the publication as necessary.
> >
> > Thank you
> >
> >
> > Gyan
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 7:37 AM Dongjie (Jimmy) <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Sue,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I’ve reviewed this document and support its publication as standard RFC.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >>
> >> Jie
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: Idr [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
> >> Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2021 11:52 PM
> >> To: [e-mail]
> >> Subject: [Idr] WG LC - draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-nvo3-12 - Technology
> only (2/4/2020 to 2/18/2020).
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Greetings:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> This begins a modified draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-nvo3-12.txt.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> It is a modified WG LC because:
> >>
> >> 1) the WG still has to discussion where we make the cutoff for
> flow-specification v2,
> >>
> >> 2) there are no implementation for this WG LC
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> This WG LC should examine the following things:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 1.) Does WG to standardize this technology with
> >>
> >>     the IPR Statement (which appeared in 5/8/2020 after a modification
> of the draft)?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 2) Is this approach to flow-specification for tunnels ready for
> standardization?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 3) Would this technology inter-work with tunnels created by
> >>
> >>  draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encap-22.txt?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 4) Should this technology wait for a flow-specification v2?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Cheerily, Sue
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Idr mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> > Gyan Mishra
> >
> > Network Solutions Architect
> >
> > M 301 502-1347
> > 13101 Columbia Pike
> > Silver Spring, MD
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Idr mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>


-- 

<http://www.verizon.com/>

*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *



*M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike *Silver Spring, MD