IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idr] Progressing draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis -- implementation reports?

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> Tue, 26 June 2018 14:46 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 4EA9D130E8C; Tue, 26 Jun 2018 07:46:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 r0gf1e5f1EUI; Tue, 26 Jun 2018 07:46:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A72AD130E84; Tue, 26 Jun 2018 07:46:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dresden.attlocal.net (99-59-193-67.lightspeed.livnmi.sbcglobal.net [99.59.193.67]) by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9AACE1E3CE; Tue, 26 Jun 2018 10:46:07 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
In-Reply-To: <289A4A15-675C-4C56-810D-B5809434A669@juniper.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 10:46:11 -0400
Cc: "draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis@ietf.org>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <7868BEF8-7B24-43BD-B36A-6C621D17D14A@pfrc.org>
References: <289A4A15-675C-4C56-810D-B5809434A669@juniper.net>
To: John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/V5pyG_NgU7BQdIBUtumqJjYuNHA>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Progressing draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis -- implementation reports?
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
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, 26 Jun 2018 14:46:18 -0000

John,

> On Jun 26, 2018, at 10:37 AM, John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net> wrote:
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> I've just been reviewing the mailing list traffic on draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis as well as the shepherd's report. It looks to me like we're ready to go, except that we have no reported implementations, at least I don't see anything at https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/Protocol%20implementations%20Reports, and the shepherd report reflects this too.
> 
> I'm hoping this will be easy to remedy since this is of course a bis document intended to clarify things, so hopefully many or most existing flowspec implementations already comply. If we can get a few reported soon, that will make for smooth sailing. 

Since I've been living in flowspec land recently in the employer's code, I should be able to provide a review vs. implementation before IETF in Montreal.

An open point on the mailing list though has been whether the ipv6 flowspec work should be merged in.  See prior comments from Sue.

I'm personally ambivalent about doing that bit of merge work, but it's a good fit as long as the Working Group doesn't feel it's an issue to encumber the update to the core spec with the IPv6 stuff which is optional.  But if so, we'd need to see a merge to continue.

-- Jeff

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email