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

Works for me too.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

On April 22, 2020 at 11:56:33 AM, Alissa Cooper (alissa@cooperw.in) wrote:

Works for me. Thanks.
Alissa

> On Apr 22, 2020, at 11:52 AM, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com> wrote:
>
> Alissa and Alvaro:
>
> Alissa discuss is correct.
>
> My solution to fix this is to provide the following revisions:
>
> Section 7.1:
> Old/
> Interferes with: No other BGP Flow Specification Traffic Filtering
> Action in this document.
> /
> New/
> Interferes with: May interfere with the traffic-rate-packets (see section
7.2).
> Policy may allow both filtering by traffic-rate-packets and
traffic-rate-bytes.
> If policy does not allow this, these two actions will conflict.
> /
> Section 7.2
> Old/
> Interferes with: No other BGP Flow Specification Traffic Filtering
> Action in this document.
> /
> Interferes with: May interfere with the traffic-rate-bytes (see section
7.1)
> Policy may allow both filtering by traffic-rate-packets and
traffic-rate-bytes.
> If policy does not allow this, these two actions will conflict.
> /
>
> If this fix is acceptable to both of you, please let me know. We will
re-spin the draft.
>
> Sue Hares
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2020 10:03 AM
> To: Alvaro Retana
> Cc: draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis@ietf.org; idr-chairs@ietf.org; idr@ietf.org;
IESG
> Subject: Re: [Idr] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on
draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-22: (with DISCUSS)
>
> Hi Alvaro,
>
>> On Apr 22, 2020, at 9:53 AM, Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
> Right, but 7.1 and 7.2 say that traffic-rate-bytes and
traffic-rate-packets don’t interfere with each other (or any other
filtering actions specified), so presumably 7.7 does not apply?
>
> Alissa
>
>>
>>
>> Alvaro.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>