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

[Lucy yong <[e-mail]>]

support Jie’s suggestion.

Lucy

From: Idr [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Dongjie (Jimmy)
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 10:46 AM
To: Susan Hares; [e-mail]
Subject: [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

Hi,

IMO in short term we need to work on option1, in which ordering and combination rules need to be specified.

As for option 2, we may need to take the characteristics of BGP into consideration and identify the appropriate use cases for BGP-FS, then make the protocol extension accordingly.

Best regards,
Jie

发件人: Idr [mailto:[e-mail]] 代表 Susan Hares
发送时间: 2016年3月6日 6:49
收件人: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
主题: [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

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.