Re: [Idr] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6-19: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Susan Hares <> Thu, 05 November 2020 01:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 435073A1200; Wed, 4 Nov 2020 17:03:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.948
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.948 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3gTj8Dxi9XEx; Wed, 4 Nov 2020 17:02:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 223B83A11FE; Wed, 4 Nov 2020 17:02:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=forwardok (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=;
From: Susan Hares <>
To: 'Christoph Loibl' <>, 'Éric Vyncke' <>
Cc:,,, 'The IESG' <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2020 20:02:54 -0500
Message-ID: <06dc01d6b30f$6502c510$2f084f30$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Content-Language: en-us
Thread-Index: AQF5oxv2FBYklenxTff5lCGtd3hzagIXdomXqmIZ4WA=
X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 201104-7, 11/04/2020), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Not-Tested
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6-19: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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, 05 Nov 2020 01:03:01 -0000


I want to underscore one point Christoph made for your review in the morning. 

The WG purpose for this version of flowspec (RFC5575-bis) was to fix existing issues (bugs, v6, within AS extension).  These fixes allow the operators to continue to have DDoW work while the IDR working group to create a second revision of flow specification.

Sue (co-author, WG co-chair). 

-----Original Message-----
From: Idr [] On Behalf Of Christoph Loibl
Sent: Wednesday, November 4, 2020 9:11 AM
To: Éric Vyncke
Cc:;;; The IESG
Subject: Re: [Idr] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6-19: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi Éric,

Thanks for your review of the document. Please see my comments inline, I think this should clear your DISCUSS. I also attached a updated document that contains changes resulting from your comments.

Since the draft submission is closed now I will ask Alvaro to publish the changed document today.

Cheers Christoph

> I am puzzled by the absence of a flow spec for the first Next-Header 
> being a specific value and by the absence of a flowspec for the 
> occurence of any extension header in the extension header chain. 
> Extension headers are an important difference compared to IPv4 and 
> could be 'nasty' as well (e.g., hop-by-hop header). Why was this not 
> considered by the authors ? Or is there another document in the WG to address this issue ?

We discussed matching on extension headers in general. But this is a little bit of a moving target. It also seemed to have very limited advantage to match on the next-header-id values only (except for the upper-layer protocol). The flexibility to also match on the "content"/"encoding" of extension headers is not the scope of this document. Flowspec in general in its current specification (as extension of rfc5575bis) is not very extensible. The match for every new extension-header and its properties would most probably introduce a new FS component (something that is not easily possible). To overcome such limitations, there are discussions in IDR with the working title "FS 2.0" that should overcome the extensibility problem.

> == COMMENTS ==
> -- Section 3.1 --
> Smart idea to have an offset but I wonder whether "Offset < Length < 
> 129" is true... Esp. with some IPv6 addresses with an embedded IPv4 
> address (32 bit) at offset 96. Isn't "Offset + Length <= 128" better ?

No, the Length is not the number of bits to match. The number of bits to match is Length - Offset. Length is the bitnumber in the address where matching ends.

> -- Section 3.3 --
> How is the upper-layer defined here? Basically, how a node can 
> determine whether it is an extension header or an upper-layer header? 
> While I agree that there are not too many new upper-layer protocols 
> being specified, I would prefer to have a definition of "upper-layer" 
> here either by listing (or referring to a IANA registry) all existing 
> extension headers (then all 'next header' not being 'extension header' 
> are by default 'upper layer') or vice-versa.

This is the term used in RFC8200 for the "last" next-header. It also explains how to detect the upper-layer protocol.

> -- Section 3.6 --
> Just curious ;-) Why is bit 7 not used in this encoding ?

The reason for this is to keep the flags aligned with the Fragementation-Flags in rfc5575bis (IPv4). rfc5575bis has matching on DF bit there.

> -- Section 3.7 --
> I share Ben Kaduk's concern about the encoding of the flow label in 
> less than
> 20 bits.

I answerd this question in response on Benjamins DISCUSS. 

> == NITS ==
> -- Section 3.1 (and possibly others) -- Sometimes the field 'length' 
> is all lower case and sometimes it is capitalized.

I updated the document accordingly

> -- Section 3.8.2 (and possibly others) -- Please use RFC 5952 to write 
> IPv6 addresses.

As of Benjamin's comments I also added a paragraph to explain the notation, which is needed to repress the range for the pattermatching.