IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 22 April 2020 13:53 UTC

Return-Path: <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
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 BD41B3A0BD6; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 06:53:08 -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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 fPaPZYxfxOhM; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 06:53:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm1-x331.google.com (mail-wm1-x331.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::331]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DE843A0CD4; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 06:53:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm1-x331.google.com with SMTP id u16so2452058wmc.5; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 06:53:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=N9ns7ABOzO8B8dyIsnvJmS1me94cbVfdPwG2pPF+ICo=; b=r8qTusVliNG0RvJLeVak5ZnB5szLhrAD+Aq4OdSOEGeqeRgigR6WzGJeIBvcTrRXds 1QjT2blEZHL2NFfobt08CLTM9IedNiYjYlh8vqs1MuInnqL4isEMeVt5up4D+ia4dAkh IuGBtPT2Br4Nitkotj6+QRoaaPT1ipenjCYix8YiJows5UT1sTX7y4/feqIOqJ2uDKfC Q6FePOu+ztWft4IrdPNVFqNaGPkqiLe8PHUGBkRQ8U4qpagHLu0FFi2eoQSC0zymw9bY 5xADsyq5OLPvulVJ033q2cP3uIOJC4IIiZy3TphXaklfpfuCmYUZNsnrzPxx8WdBX4rn 2aOQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=N9ns7ABOzO8B8dyIsnvJmS1me94cbVfdPwG2pPF+ICo=; b=L70RKUUVeVOe6vjCYW9ZPF0tBOjjb+T0PlI+O/cylUGHJji29uPrwbB7iy5F1SqrkE utOmrQYUOqd28knsMucZP9ggx6HJ/Ox+zvCY45aqaF744fs6MreZqUAIXOZYDJUZf2CT tyf1c3n3HACrVCZcp4K8hM+/8QlTKk73J9s7IiW7+AoneHvWcYNmfcyehUzlCpQY/1Q3 Kgdj0z9IllOFwWvGddh7jz2H5Qn9ErQvUCsQc9U4ta3xc4jBLuuibLljemNEbGzcoAEd o1xix/UGKIaVIAV/69mGOuZZXeoUqGHjtD9mkejwtPaR6EehrPFWPp7d4Z2OBvE7r+uP t2sA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuYinTpjqS9+lLIZjzR5N0Wnhj6wa8jiCg8UuY9lUY3BGZjLKO4l meSFrBvkZSrPcebJIPHuzH9CYgatq24uGn+Cjr8LDIXc
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypJq6wutKjrOQlRYgIxVQgSwLWahyrkunvkWYxKALaPC2QXB35KbbVxyzNBdDq0ba+MiXQxTRJ8HgKSLACNFC4g=
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:f312:: with SMTP id q18mr10700655wmq.175.1587563585506; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 06:53:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 06:53:04 -0700
From: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <158756317450.27447.7394258570701485593@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <158756317450.27447.7394258570701485593@ietfa.amsl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 06:53:04 -0700
Message-ID: <CAMMESswTW_C_wB2g4ADVwDk872PuZqGK=ycnq1QKs4zyu3xTKw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
Cc: idr-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis@ietf.org, Jie Dong <jie.dong@huawei.com>, idr@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Z2_HfgCHoE7U73wnWWStw6noHKs>
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 13:53:16 -0000

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.


Alvaro.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email