Re: [Idr] WG Work item call - Opinions on work items (3/5/2016 to 3/17/2016) and adoption of draft-hares-idr-flowspec-combo-01.txt

I read draft-hares-idr-flowspec-combo-01.txt and support it. The work described in the draft is useful and well fit in BGP. Regarding to option 1 and option 2, in the current stage, I support working on both. In the long run, I think option 2 is better.

Best Regards,
Huaimo

> On 05 Mar 2016, at 23:48, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com> wrote:
>
> The interim on 3/7/2016 will have a discussion of revisions to the BGP Flow specification (BGP-FS) to add more features.  There are two suggested options:
> 1)      A minimal features to existing BGP-FS (option 1)
> Add a few new match filters to the BGP-FS NLRI and few new actions to the BGP-FS actions (in Extended communities).  Actions would need to be done in a defined order. Each new actions would need to define conflicts with existing actions.
>
> Best use case:  DoS attack prevention
>
> 2)      Create a BGP-FS version 2 (option 2)
> Create a new BGP-FS NLRI (v2) with a field that indicates the ordering of the BGP NLRI.  Add new BGP-FS actions with an order field in the BGP Wide Communities.  Filters are done in the order defined in the filter.  Actions are done in the order defined in the actions.   Order numbers that tie are handled in a defined order.
>
> Best use case: SDN/NFV filter management
>
> A write-up on the issues and proposed solutions is contained in:
> draft-hares-idr-flowspec-combo-01.txt.  <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hares-idr-flowspec-combo/>   The WG can select both option 1 and option 2.  This is a WG work item call for input to the chairs on the scope of the WG item.  In you discussion of this topics, the chairs would appreciate if you would indicate if you would support IDR working on option 1, option 2 or both option 1 and 2.  This WG call items also includes a call for draft-hares-idr-flowspec-combo-01.txt as a write-up of the work-item options.  The WG may wish to split this draft into multiple drafts.
>
> The following drafts are being consider for either option:
> 1)      draft-eddy-idr-flowspec-packet-rate
> 2)      draft-hao-idr-flowspec-nv03
> 3)      draft-hao-idr-flowspec-label
> 4)      draft-liang-idr-bgp-flowspec-time
> 5)      draft-litowski-idr-flowspec-interfaceset
> 6)      draft-vandevelde-idr-flowspec-path-redirect
> 7)      draft-li-idr-flowspec-rpd-01.txt
> 8)      draft-wu-idr-flowspec-yang.cfg.
>
> If you wish to comment on any of these drafts, we will
>
> We will conclude the Call for WG opinions on 3/17/2016 so these authors can have a day to revise and submit their drafts before the draft deadline.
>
> Sue Hares and John Scudder
>
> PS:
> draft-li-idr-flowspec-rpd discusses limits on the distribution of the policy which has been recast in draft-hares-idr-flowspec-combo as a bgp-wide community of Container type 1 with an atom of BGP Flow Specification ordering. However,  this draft is included in the list to be able to update the mechanism from this draft into that context.
>
> The yang model for BGP Flow specification is also included in this work item as it will need to be modified based on the approaches.  The yang model is in draft-wu-idr-flowspec-yang-cfg.  In your comments, please indicate if you feel these drafts or other drafts.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org <mailto:Idr@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr