Re: [Idr] WG Adoption call for drafts for Flow Specification option 1 (RFC5575 additions (filters/actions) 3/25 to 4/8/2016

Hi Ignas and all,

Regarding draft-vandevelde-idr-flowspec-path-redirect & draft-li-idr-flowspec-redirect-generalized-sid-, here are the achieved discussion information about "Semantics Independent" Flowspec:
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/current/msg15081.html

01) draft-vandevelde-idr-flowspec-path-redirect ever said that it planned to define ¡°Semantics Independent¡± action.
Per the comment information, draft-vandevelde-idr-flowspec-path-redirect-00 & draft-vandevelde-idr-flowspec-path-redirect-01 defined the "Semantics Independent" Flowspec Redirection:

https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-vandevelde-idr-flowspec-path-redirect-01.txt
¡
This document defines a new BGP extended community.
¡
The 2-byte local administrator field is formatted as shown in Figure 1.
                      0                   1
                      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
                     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                     |          Reserved       |TID|C|
                     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

02) draft-li-idr-flowspec-redirect-generalized-sid-00 defined a "Semantics Dependent¡± Flowspec Redirection:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-idr-flowspec-redirect-generalized-sid/
¡
   This document defines the following Redirect to Generalized Segment
   ID Extended Community:

   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  | Type=TBD1     | Sub-Type=TBD2 | Flags(1 octet)| Segment Type  |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                  Generalized Segment ID                       |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
¡

03) Now draft-vandevelde-idr-flowspec-path-redirect-02 introduces ¡°B¡± bit to map the value encoded in the global administrator field to a Binding Segment Identifier value:
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-vandevelde-idr-flowspec-path-redirect-02.txt
¡
This document defines a new BGP extended community.
¡
The 2-byte local administrator field is formatted as shown in Figure 1.

                      0                   1
                      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
                     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                     |          Reserved     |B|TID|C|
                     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
¡
   Bit 2 is defined to be the 'B' (Binding) bit.  When the 'B' bit is
   set, the value encoded in the global administrator field is a Binding
   Segment Identifier value the use of which is detailed in section 3.2.
¡

Now draft-vandevelde also defines the "Semantics Dependent" Flowspec Redirection.
Should we combine the work of draft-vandevelde & draft-li ?

Thanks,
Shunwan

·¢¼þÈË: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] ´ú±í Ignas Bagdonas
·¢ËÍÊ±¼ä: 2016Äê4ÔÂ8ÈÕ 20:17
ÊÕ¼þÈË: idr@ietf.org
Ö÷Ìâ: Re: [Idr] WG Adoption call for drafts for Flow Specification option 1 (RFC5575 additions (filters/actions) 3/25 to 4/8/2016

I have read the drafts being polled.

For a group of drafts on redirect:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-vandevelde-idr-flowspec-path-redirect/
Support as being a good starting point.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hao-idr-flowspec-redirect-tunnel/
Do not support. It is redundant.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-idr-flowspec-redirect-generalized-sid/
Do not support. It is redundant.

Draft-vandevelde can achieve all what draft-hao and draft-li can, and in a more flexible way. Having the ability to decouple redirection tunnel type from redirection action is both practical and extensible - the actual tunnel to be used is a local operational decision for each network element, it is not necessary signalled at the same time and by the same mechanism. Decoupling signalling and redirect parts aligns well to operational practices of using specific tools for specific tasks. Just that BGP could do that does not necesasry mean that it should be used as a best fit. From operational perspective there is no need to have multiple solutions that try to address the narrow problem space in similar yet incompatible ways. There should be one document for redirect, and draft-vandevelde is a good starting base for that.

For the match:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-litkowski-idr-flowspec-interfaceset/
Suport as a good starting point.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-eddy-idr-flowspec-packet-rate/
Support as a good starting point.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hao-idr-flowspec-nvo3/
Support as a good starting point.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-liang-idr-bgp-flowspec-label/
Support as a good starting point.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yong-idr-flowspec-mpls-match/
Support as a good starting point.

Ignas

On 25/03/2016 14:47, Susan Hares wrote:
IDR WG:

This begins a 2 week WG Call (3/25 to 4/8/2016) for the set of drafts to be considered in RFC5575 additions. These options are filters, actions or critical security additions.  The flow specification work has been a part of the interims since IETF 94
https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/interim/2016/02/08/idr/proceedings.html
https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/interim/2016/03/07/idr/proceedings.html

There will be a brief flow specification presentation at IETF 95, and the email list has select to start with option 1 ¨C extending RFC5575.  We also will be gathering details on the SDN/NFV use case for option 2 (new NLRI and Wide Communities support).

This is a group call for the drafts to be considered in the flow specification work.  For each of the drafts you wish to be considered Option 1, please indicate:

1)      If this option is valuable for the DDoS deployments or another critical deployments,

2)      Do you feel this draft is useful, but not ready for adoption,

3)      Do you feel this draft is a good start for this work.

The drafts to consider are:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-eddy-idr-flowspec-packet-rate/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hao-idr-flowspec-nvo3/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hao-idr-flowspec-redirect-tunnel/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-idr-flowspec-redirect-generalized-sid/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-liang-idr-bgp-flowspec-label/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-litkowski-idr-flowspec-interfaceset/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-vandevelde-idr-flowspec-path-redirect/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yong-idr-flowspec-mpls-match/

And for the ordering of these filters and actions drafts ¨C the Option 1 section out of this
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hares-idr-flowspec-combo/
(A revised draft with just Option 1 will be posted)

Sue Hares and John Scudder

_______________________________________________

Idr mailing list

Idr@ietf.org<mailto:Idr@ietf.org>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr