Re: [Idr] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-22: (with DISCUSS)

Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Wed, 22 April 2020 15:56 UTC

Return-Path: <alissa@cooperw.in>
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 7EB463A0F6A; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 08:56:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=cooperw.in header.b=W5S7ZDKA; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=pCAsvukz
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 5YiI14JWvAdw; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 08:56:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3EC1C3A0F79; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 08:56:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 914085C01F4; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 11:56:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 22 Apr 2020 11:56:32 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h= content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s=fm2; bh=D yOadCZjk/MSd5CSDypAZwbk7jMO76XVflefTVDxdfM=; b=W5S7ZDKATQb04LVdc JZLTT3BajxIIBaPRj1f/6Jd1Gkpfy3elMDly1JG23oGHWsqXN1g/sPEs7BovZYK1 z5jtsZKbuyGH7mxhmKkZ6yQJrblBv63xBfO0R+R6tPc0yIRt9KyH0El46CIjpzzp qKL97H8tbOuo+dZKT3L/H4Bbv6G2fhMaDqfKfjLTpmkgtAvZTje8TbB17U0aZQtR 1wi9tDllW/kn00SvHx802xI3PVps0CbZuOScqv0A7DGY5AL30QC+WleWyi6ug+LO NOGym/KyDDgW6UCKrfgECXuTyQ2JkL8Mk7nEwa1769lfQC4z0k3msWpW6Ohg7VOk MrJEw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=DyOadCZjk/MSd5CSDypAZwbk7jMO76XVflefTVDxd fM=; b=pCAsvukziQqvYwX7M2ey/vIax9TV3PoxzArwGSfcj05nheydCWDMgbMIi n90rs4aD0fympB96y8ku6+7dTddsw3ONfWUk0cJgewmEqwDka5MFtErYaFC+lUjZ di59DkToAQLG2D62p/8QUFDX/F5hIBeOPoQHOjM7EMdZ7jKaUzde5NkraPg0HyOW w4jFziJRM4tZwcjgZkfmqvh/ewNnFpN/9ejXIbcEmIiE8lgvk7I5FvxL6w39Qk/f MvZW700buGGUI7vz0aO1Gx6Ms83VIco1vYfa93AiJ1jXa40CkKSJ5hjwnR3zSq3U D0+k4+n23L0CG5cN/sg98Vy2oJjbg==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:MGmgXt3ZfZpJ8YQEw5oxGtd8yrplU8N7jMtXFdBM6NRapRBiDA0dNQ>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduhedrgeejgdekkecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpegtggfuhfgjfffgkfhfvffosehtqhhmtdhhtdejnecuhfhrohhmpeetlhhishhs rgcuvehoohhpvghruceorghlihhsshgrsegtohhophgvrhifrdhinheqnecuffhomhgrih hnpeguohgtuhhmvghnthdrnhgvfidpihgvthhfrdhorhhgnecukfhppedujeefrdefkedr uddujedrjeeknecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrh homheprghlihhsshgrsegtohhophgvrhifrdhinh
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:MGmgXp5jZ5yi6Pz6wprf7ZF21qgZk0mRmoN65XImYsYatfoSVvk_Ew> <xmx:MGmgXjOYrZyOXzoNBruK0KlnPf-iO2e4ZTF17QoUftD0OuVeGZzeoA> <xmx:MGmgXlLlhviqDEWTUP-ZdPjTpQwrDQDiEpJlAXUi_jgmy8DHzYE_zw> <xmx:MGmgXqmBoexUUK9t5f4N0RXg9qlFvnKmzpb8zyvhdPWQDhrTJ6RZqQ>
Received: from rtp-alcoop-nitro2.cisco.com (unknown [173.38.117.78]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id C0D3C3065CE3; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 11:56:31 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.5\))
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
In-Reply-To: <006201d618be$03e4afa0$0bae0ee0$@ndzh.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 11:56:27 -0400
Cc: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis@ietf.org, idr-chairs@ietf.org, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, idr@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3FC2341A-4760-4129-9DE3-536515C2FC6F@cooperw.in>
References: <158756317450.27447.7394258570701485593@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAMMESswTW_C_wB2g4ADVwDk872PuZqGK=ycnq1QKs4zyu3xTKw@mail.gmail.com> <2316B33C-8C79-4A23-B126-5B4D6EB11FBC@cooperw.in> <006201d618be$03e4afa0$0bae0ee0$@ndzh.com>
To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.5)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/NvZivyr_ijusdZ5OuxQ-Din2tMg>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-22: (with DISCUSS)
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: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 15:56:36 -0000

Works for me. Thanks.
Alissa

> On Apr 22, 2020, at 11:52 AM, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com> wrote:
> 
> Alissa and Alvaro: 
> 
> Alissa discuss is correct.   
> 
> My solution to fix this is to provide the following revisions: 
> 
> Section 7.1: 
> Old/
>   Interferes with: No other BGP Flow Specification Traffic Filtering
>   Action in this document.
> /
>  New/
>   Interferes with:  May interfere with the traffic-rate-packets (see section 7.2).
>   Policy may allow both filtering by traffic-rate-packets and traffic-rate-bytes. 
>   If policy does not allow this, these two actions will conflict.  
> /  
> Section 7.2 
> Old/
>   Interferes with: No other BGP Flow Specification Traffic Filtering
>   Action in this document.
> /
>   Interferes with: May interfere with the  traffic-rate-bytes (see section  7.1) 
>   Policy may allow both filtering by traffic-rate-packets and traffic-rate-bytes. 
>   If policy does not allow this, these two actions will conflict.      
> /
> 
> If this fix  is acceptable to both of you, please let me know.  We will re-spin the draft. 
> 
> Sue Hares 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2020 10:03 AM
> To: Alvaro Retana
> Cc: draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis@ietf.org; idr-chairs@ietf.org; idr@ietf.org; IESG
> Subject: Re: [Idr] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-22: (with DISCUSS)
> 
> Hi Alvaro,
> 
>> On Apr 22, 2020, at 9:53 AM, Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> On April 22, 2020 at 9:46:15 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Alissa:
>> 
>> Hi!
>> 
>> 
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> -
>>> DISCUSS:
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> -
>>> 
>>> Apologies as this may be a really silly question, but isn't it 
>>> possible for traffic-rate-bytes and traffic-rate-packets to interfere with each other?
>>> That is, if by mistake a flow specification shows up containing both 
>>> actions and they contradict each other (e.g., 0 bytes but 1M 
>>> packets), how is that situation supposed to be handled?
>> 
>> See §7.7.  It is left to the implementation to decide which filtering 
>> action to use.
> 
> Right, but 7.1 and 7.2 say that traffic-rate-bytes and traffic-rate-packets don’t interfere with each other (or any other filtering actions specified), so presumably 7.7 does not apply? 
> 
> Alissa
> 
>> 
>> 
>> Alvaro.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>