IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Idr] New draft submitted: draft-loibl-bacher-idr-flowspec-clarification

Christoph Loibl <c@tix.at> Tue, 23 August 2016 12:09 UTC

Return-Path: <c@tix.at>
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 87DF412D942 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Aug 2016 05:09:12 -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] 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 gDcxdWGppFNF for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Aug 2016 05:09:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.hated.at (mail.hated.at [IPv6:2001:858:2:8::235]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D66312D943 for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Aug 2016 05:09:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [92.60.6.198] (helo=[10.55.3.175]) by mail.hated.at with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <c@tix.at>) id 1bcAOv-00081u-Sx for idr@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Aug 2016 14:01:57 +0200
From: Christoph Loibl <c@tix.at>
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.6b2
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_8E757A2E-7972-4D1D-9D58-12FB566BA78F"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2016 14:08:56 +0200
Message-Id: <65345B6C-D24F-4F32-BF3C-E9343A7C61E1@tix.at>
To: idr@ietf.org
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/_0f9YVIaf3hFnvDxv_HDVU5Lpa8>
Subject: [Idr] New draft submitted: draft-loibl-bacher-idr-flowspec-clarification
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 23 Aug 2016 12:09:12 -0000

Hi,

We submitted a new draft and are happy to receive feedback:

Since interoperability is key to an flowspec Internet deployment we tried to clarify the ambiguous parts of the flowspec RFC 5575 in order to allow a consistent implementation by equipment vendors.

Title: draft-loibl-bacher-idr-flowspec-clarification

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-loibl-bacher-idr-flowspec-clarification/

The reason for this draft submission is, that we recently performed a rather large flowspec interop test (the main goal was to evaluate possible inter-AS flowspec scenarios in a multi vendor environment) and discovered many bugs and vendor interop problems that we want to solve.

Unfortunately we currently cannot share all our findings in a test report, because we hit some serious bugs that have (under circumstances) potential to remotely melt down entire networks and are working with the vendors to get bugs fixed.

Christoph

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email