Re: [Idr] BGP Flowspec rules precedence order (RFC 5575)

Hi Pavana,

Did you have a look into the actual code (thanks to Job’s comment) that is contained in the RFC5575bis draft which should be identical from the behaviour:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-06 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-06>

Christoph

--
Christoph Loibl
c@tix.at | CL8-RIPE | PGP-Key-ID: 0x4B2C0055 | http://www.nextlayer.at

> On 12.02.2018, at 12:03, PVLR Pavana Murthy <pvlrpm@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hello,
>   In the RFC 5575, the following is given for the comparing the Flowspec components of types other then prefix.
> 
> } else {
> common =
> MIN(component_length(comp1), component_length(comp2));
> cmp = memcmp(data(comp1), data(comp2), common);
> // not equal, lowest value has precedence
> // equal, longest string has precedence
> }
> 
> 
> Here, what does data refrer to  ?
> 
> Is it the binary form of 1) [op, value]> / [op, bitmask]  or 2) Just [value] / [bitmask]
> 
> eg:
> 
> 
> 1)  01 18 58 58 58 04 01 46 81 50  ----> Dst.Prefix: 88.88.88.0/24 <http://88.88.88.0/24>  Port: 70 | 80
> 
> 2)  01 18 58 58 58 04 03 5a c5 6e    ---->   Dst.Prefix: 88.88.88.0/24 <http://88.88.88.0/24>  Port: >=90 & <= 110
> 
> In the above FS rules,  Dst. Prefix is same in both, so we need to compare the data of next type 4 (Port).
> So do we need to do memcmp of  (01 46 81 50) and  (03 5a c5 6e) ?
> 
> Thanks,
> Pavana.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

Re: [Idr] BGP Flowspec rules precedence order (RFC 5575)

Attachment: signature.asc