IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idr] WG LC - draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-nvo3-12 - Technology only (2/4/2020 to 2/18/2020).

Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> Fri, 19 February 2021 18:18 UTC

Return-Path: <d3e3e3@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 A80163A12D2 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 10:18:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.848
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.848 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_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=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=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 4h68gtVs3MYi for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 10:18:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-il1-x12d.google.com (mail-il1-x12d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12d]) (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 EA8C83A12CD for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 10:18:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-il1-x12d.google.com with SMTP id e2so5274811ilu.0 for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 10:18:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=H7j0XLHuOigXKpKXdPw7ZnyvbQBIl0qOLHeWIyP6pH8=; b=bFKRk5VL5HyBhvDCP9UNsiTITD9X6tbIsHt6pBsJ2faRuy+SugdIjonY7f/uSzq9Ng 21fBl3gL+neXMr9pZTZY+zwujGXK2G7aJsEQWoFOBM7YFmIicRN5RNljOKmyvg8e/E2n eX5bbAoniEgrZSnnoLE6j0SuTyjmpW3HmBIYwyaGBmR0wAKn1SdLc+tM/3loiKO+2UVb 0ECaxTDxz/v+Ujq5/6A+9PFyXaQmFwJOTJJPUjHqLsp2dpH/E6TeHl2gLlI0qxdkJSim fZyi21PWOcv0EgVSycgg4T5gfuSPwDAw0v4t+rxDa1wRRui8plNLtb5zexo+AhaRNHdS Lpmw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=H7j0XLHuOigXKpKXdPw7ZnyvbQBIl0qOLHeWIyP6pH8=; b=r4C1sEI24tLKiHZkG5pU5fh/wTbDMoTwzF66W6EKb9JAdUQkcNdZSjcYb4eskKW4ZD em4fPA6BwA+3pQd41GQhggDvHimlMrMvaltGLzcODCmQaVYKyH4QnhGKM3KqkMH1b6mS RT7ngwtGuXTPKvf6CldC1YNOVbsV2z3dkYX68TtZK4Q/oNO/oqH6p0JQ9r93k4WIxHKx MIE7GGwkIWZ/QGqbaqP3e/51EsAhVesTx5aFluoN9Vv+Ct2+15TFDcQDZvBQXClLXid0 /cEb1hdUUc+DJ1sjDSQXewh77GnjnCiVq9aLzikBB+lj7ZIbjibCoZVVxWZRszzFCIGh HBHg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533vsMmkL4YGhkRYmXKSho//KeXe3+OAMmj7sPFLzJldSKRtuisE RsEPOF0QWXf+FMmY1nvxb2X53Q2hSiDu4evWiMmhR59odQewqQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwK+RNSdrfAs9ufYE/EUTPHhjg0ylZoNnOMi8x/FS9mWLgKFfENivMVmDgEA0yw7BbKj5R8BaAhNlAkCU6xlk0=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:ee3:: with SMTP id j3mr4521689ilk.199.1613758680139; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 10:18:00 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <012d01d6fb0d$b50468c0$1f0d3a40$@ndzh.com> <32e9db67e4b44375b06b7f1111a0fbec@huawei.com> <CABNhwV29HqBRUj-v9w9JuSdHvrYnA9mtn9WW47VCpUH80pS7QQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABNhwV29HqBRUj-v9w9JuSdHvrYnA9mtn9WW47VCpUH80pS7QQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2021 13:17:49 -0500
Message-ID: <CAF4+nEHLaFY8mZ_xrMj3Uw=DZgLOmuvA-8dy=_EgsoMqLcUS1Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
Cc: "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/awiN7DK46Q_cHQ4z0-5yPwudy9M>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG LC - draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-nvo3-12 - Technology only (2/4/2020 to 2/18/2020).
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: Fri, 19 Feb 2021 18:18:03 -0000

Hi Gyan,

On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 1:32 AM Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Sue
>
> I support publication of this document as a standard RFC.

Thanks for your support.

> Since this document supports GRE, IP in IP and L2TPv3, even though the title states NVO3 overlays, should this draft really include all tunnel types described in tunnel-encap-22 that would be applicable to flow spec dissemination. If so the then maybe removal of NVO3 in the draft name and change to tunneled traffic maybe appropriate.

For historic reasons, the file name of this draft has "-nvo3-" in it.
The title of the document used to have NVO3 in it ("BGP Dissemination
of Network Virtualization Overlays (NVO3) Flow Specification Rules").
That was true of versions -00 through -06. However, with version -07
the title was changed to "BGP Dissemination of Flow Specification
Rules for Tunneled Traffic". It would, of course, be possible to
change the file name but the version number would have to be reset to
00 which might be misleading.

The only tunnel type specifically listed in
draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-22 that is not in
draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-nvo3-12 is MPLS-in-GRE. I'm not sure that is
needed as such. Certainly someone could generate DoS traffic at the
GRE level that said it has MPLS inside the GRE. Some modification of
flowspec-nvo3 to accommodate this would probably be a good idea but
there isn't any matching of MPLS stacks in any of BGP flowspec
currently. So, I think some improvement in the GRE tunnel provisions
in flowspec-nvo3 but I don't think taking on flowspec matching on MPLS
stacks is warranted.

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
 d3e3e3@gmail.com

> 1.) Does WG to standardize this technology with
>
>     the IPR Statement (which appeared in 5/8/2020 after a modification of the draft)?
>
>  Yes
>
> 2) Is this approach to flow-specification for tunnels ready for standardization?
>
>  Yes
>
> 3) Would this technology inter-work with tunnels created by
>
>  draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encap-22.txt?
>
>  Yes.  I think it is very important for this document to support the tunnel encap draft NVO overlay encapsulations.
>
> 4) Should this technology wait for a flow-specification v2?
>
> I don’t think so.  As we are proceeding with modified WG LC without any implementations i think in that light we can proceed to publish and not wait for flow spec v2.  At that time we can always to an bis update if needed to the publication as necessary.
>
> Thank you
>
>
> Gyan
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 7:37 AM Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.dong@huawei.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Sue,
>>
>>
>>
>> I’ve reviewed this document and support its publication as standard RFC.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Jie
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
>> Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2021 11:52 PM
>> To: idr@ietf.org
>> Subject: [Idr] WG LC - draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-nvo3-12 - Technology only (2/4/2020 to 2/18/2020).
>>
>>
>>
>> Greetings:
>>
>>
>>
>> This begins a modified draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-nvo3-12.txt.
>>
>>
>>
>> It is a modified WG LC because:
>>
>> 1) the WG still has to discussion where we make the cutoff for flow-specification v2,
>>
>> 2) there are no implementation for this WG LC
>>
>>
>>
>> This WG LC should examine the following things:
>>
>>
>>
>> 1.) Does WG to standardize this technology with
>>
>>     the IPR Statement (which appeared in 5/8/2020 after a modification of the draft)?
>>
>>
>>
>> 2) Is this approach to flow-specification for tunnels ready for standardization?
>>
>>
>>
>> 3) Would this technology inter-work with tunnels created by
>>
>>  draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encap-22.txt?
>>
>>
>>
>> 4) Should this technology wait for a flow-specification v2?
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheerily, Sue
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Idr mailing list
>> Idr@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>
> --
>
>
> Gyan Mishra
>
> Network Solutions Architect
>
> M 301 502-1347
> 13101 Columbia Pike
> Silver Spring, MD
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email