IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Idr] 答复: 答复: New Version Notification for draft-liang-idr-flowspec-orf-00.txt

Liangqiandeng <liangqiandeng@huawei.com> Tue, 16 June 2015 02:29 UTC

Return-Path: <liangqiandeng@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BD9C1ACDB0 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 19:29:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 fXok-OBJLwsH for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 19:29:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E8E31ACDA9 for <idr@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 19:29:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml404-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BTV03252; Tue, 16 Jun 2015 02:29:25 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from nkgeml409-hub.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.40) by lhreml404-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.218) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Tue, 16 Jun 2015 03:29:25 +0100
Received: from NKGEML502-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.78]) by nkgeml409-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.40]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Tue, 16 Jun 2015 10:29:21 +0800
From: Liangqiandeng <liangqiandeng@huawei.com>
To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] 答复: New Version Notification for draft-liang-idr-flowspec-orf-00.txt
Thread-Index: AQHQp52Hl8V9sMAf7kaFYChaV1bqfZ2uWGfg
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 02:29:20 +0000
Message-ID: <FCA9153F864C2646BE37F183391FCADDD3D6D2@nkgeml502-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <20150530055345.15364.12184.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <DD5FC8DE455C3348B94340C0AB5517334F86E8E4@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com> <CA+b+ER=oDMSkysWAXVO0z9_H-rM2di6irzVW8VQxD6NThWLmEw@mail.gmail.com> <FCA9153F864C2646BE37F183391FCADDD3CB99@nkgeml502-mbs.china.huawei.com> <CA+b+ER=EjDF9PENJKqYXwgxLZJtuWxMT+cwyj16KDnf24-okaQ@mail.gmail.com> <20150615185527.GE2288@pfrc.org>
In-Reply-To: <20150615185527.GE2288@pfrc.org>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.135.113.180]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/mUMzc_nnXCRpfNKZL_CYNAJoiLo>
Cc: "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Subject: [Idr] 答复: 答复: New Version Notification for draft-liang-idr-flowspec-orf-00.txt
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 16 Jun 2015 02:29:30 -0000

Thanks for your interest in this draft and your comments.

Yes, as Robert has pointed out, flowspec-orf is unnecessary while there are not so many flowspec rules disseminated in the network, the router can filter the invalid flowspec rules locally.

But as flowspec is applied more and more popularly(e.g. draft-patel-raszuk-bgp-vector-routing-05, draft-liang-idr-bgp-flowspec-route-00), maybe the flowspec-orf will be more and more useful.

Please do me a favour, do you think whether the use cases of flowspec-orf are reasonable? Any comment is welcome.

-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Jeffrey Haas [mailto:jhaas@pfrc.org] 
发送时间: 2015年6月16日 2:55
收件人: Robert Raszuk
抄送: Liangqiandeng; idr@ietf.org
主题: Re: [Idr] 答复: New Version Notification for draft-liang-idr-flowspec-orf-00.txt

On Tue, Jun 02, 2015 at 11:18:49AM +0200, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> ​ORF in general is about pushing your inbound filter to a peer. Here 
> we are talking about installing inbound filters for flow spec routes 
> and pushing it to a peer.

More importantly, in my opinion, flowspec already does rather well at distributing its filtering behaviors without the need for the added complexity of the ORF mechanism.  I don't believe ORF is a good fit and I strongly suggest that this work be discontinued.

-- Jeff

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email