Re: [Idr] Returning draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis to WG, new 2 week discussion period

Jeffrey Haas <> Thu, 13 June 2019 20:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA2C91202ED; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 13:47:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2gn24obux8qP; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 13:47:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CB121207CF; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 13:47:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 9B9481E2F1; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 16:48:30 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 16:48:30 -0400
From: Jeffrey Haas <>
To: Robert Raszuk <>
Cc: John Scudder <>, "" <>, "idr@ietf. org" <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Returning draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis to WG, new 2 week discussion period
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 20:47:30 -0000

Robert (and 5575bis authors),

On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 08:26:28PM +0200, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> RFC5575 has been written as DDoS mitigation tool and 5575bis attempts to
> clarify various ambiguities of the base spec.
> We as the WG have decided that numerous 5575 extensions (for example those
> injected by controllers or NMS) will be specified in different documents
> and not be embedded into base Flow Specification one.
> With that if we agree that DDoS mitigation is still our target for the base
> spec I would tent to suggest that destination field to be made mandatory
> for real DDoS mitigation use case. Relaxing that could be done for other
> Flow Spec use cases in their separate documents, but outside of the base
> spec.
> So the only change which may be needed would be add:
> 4.2.  NLRI Value Encoding
>    The Flow Specification NLRI-type consists of several optional
>    subcomponents (except Type 1 which is mandatory).

While I agree that DDoS mitigation is the core use case for flowspec in its
current form, your suggested change will likely have negative impacts on
implementations.  Destination-less filters exist and get deployed, and the
text you're suggesting makes them not-only non-compliant but arguably

I think where we have some room for discussion is where we draw the line for
validation in the default case vs. the clarification:

I believe the reason the discussion is needed in a 5575-bis context is that
we have an obvious hole in the core spec as to what we should do for what is
intended to be a compliant case.

Whether the text we converge on obviates the need for the -oid draft is an
open question.

-- Jeff