IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Youjianjie <youjianjie@huawei.com> Fri, 23 October 2015 07:48 UTC

Return-Path: <youjianjie@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 3EC261B2F2F for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Oct 2015 00:48:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.078
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.078 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, CN_BODY_35=0.339, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, 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 QyXHXePFwFhU for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Oct 2015 00:48:45 -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 E05AC1B2F1C for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Oct 2015 00:48:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id CCX81549; Fri, 23 Oct 2015 07:48:43 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from NKGEML403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.34) by lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.240) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Fri, 23 Oct 2015 08:48:36 +0100
Received: from NKGEML509-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.4]) by nkgeml403-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.34]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Fri, 23 Oct 2015 15:48:31 +0800
From: Youjianjie <youjianjie@huawei.com>
To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-liang-idr-bgp-flowspec-time-00.txt
Thread-Index: AQHRChGgxqAXHE5ijUa50tGg9c/2Xp5yETIggACrjoCABfdVEA==
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 07:48:31 +0000
Message-ID: <F6C28B32DA084644BB6C8D0BD65B669D1FAC28@nkgeml509-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <F6C28B32DA084644BB6C8D0BD65B669D1F8421@nkgeml509-mbs.china.huawei.com> <20151019201947.GL15569@pfrc.org>
In-Reply-To: <20151019201947.GL15569@pfrc.org>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.136.79.106]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/rW7UzWTJMsEP1sAfovG5QK_P690>
Cc: "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
Subject: [Idr] 答复: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-liang-idr-bgp-flowspec-time-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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 07:48:47 -0000

Hi Jeff, 

> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Jeffrey Haas [mailto:jhaas@pfrc.org]
> 发送时间: 2015年10月20日 4:20
> 收件人: Youjianjie
> 抄送: idr@ietf.org
> 主题: Re: [Idr] Fwd: New Version Notification for
> draft-liang-idr-bgp-flowspec-time-00.txt
> 
> Jianjie,
> 
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 02:08:35AM +0000, Youjianjie wrote:
> > This document proposes a new BGP path attribute called "Flow Extended
> Attribute", which carries expected valid period information for a FlowSpec rule.
> > Could you please review? Your comments are welcome.
> 
> I've given some commentary on the time constraints later in the thread.
> 
> The description TLV is problematic for a few reasons:
> 0. Please use UTF-8 encoding for proposals rather than ASCII. :-)

OK, we'll consider this, thanks!

> 1. They take space in the PDU.  In some cases we're getting close to packing
> full BGP PDUs and I suspect the operational benefit of a description is low.
> If you must use space for such things, consider some sort of 64-bit number
> instead.  Community encoding may be more appropriate.

Do you mean using "Flow-ID" instead of "Flow Description"?

> 2. The scoping of this information is a bit too broad.  Especially in a DoS
> mitigation context, do you *really* want to tell your downstreams the
> information that's attached to the description?  The security ADs might call
> this a privacy consideration.

This information ("Flow Description") is optional. It is for diagnosing purpose. If the information is private, so don't need to tell.

> -- Jeff

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email