Re: [Idr] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-22: (with DISCUSS)

Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com> Wed, 22 April 2020 15:52 UTC

Return-Path: <shares@ndzh.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D1943A0F19; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 08:52:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.948
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.948 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 axuKBuzzd4jO; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 08:52:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hickoryhill-consulting.com (50-245-122-100-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.245.122.100]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 98EE23A0F20; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 08:52:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=166.170.25.188;
From: "Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com>
To: "'Alissa Cooper'" <alissa@cooperw.in>, "'Alvaro Retana'" <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: <draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis@ietf.org>, <idr-chairs@ietf.org>, <idr@ietf.org>, "'IESG'" <iesg@ietf.org>
References: <158756317450.27447.7394258570701485593@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAMMESswTW_C_wB2g4ADVwDk872PuZqGK=ycnq1QKs4zyu3xTKw@mail.gmail.com> <2316B33C-8C79-4A23-B126-5B4D6EB11FBC@cooperw.in>
In-Reply-To: <2316B33C-8C79-4A23-B126-5B4D6EB11FBC@cooperw.in>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 11:52:23 -0400
Message-ID: <006201d618be$03e4afa0$0bae0ee0$@ndzh.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQFY6rrzI6CfE5KyY0tWxrUe2MJIswGDYWKhAhzuiHqpYqB0cA==
Content-Language: en-us
X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 200421-2, 04/21/2020), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Not-Tested
X-Authenticated-User: skh@ndzh.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/zH2pWriCUBKzmj5uuAZSwKOPrtk>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-22: (with DISCUSS)
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 15:52:31 -0000

Alissa and Alvaro: 

Alissa discuss is correct.   

My solution to fix this is to provide the following revisions: 

Section 7.1: 
Old/
   Interferes with: No other BGP Flow Specification Traffic Filtering
   Action in this document.
/
  New/
   Interferes with:  May interfere with the traffic-rate-packets (see section 7.2).
   Policy may allow both filtering by traffic-rate-packets and traffic-rate-bytes. 
   If policy does not allow this, these two actions will conflict.  
/  
Section 7.2 
Old/
   Interferes with: No other BGP Flow Specification Traffic Filtering
   Action in this document.
/
   Interferes with: May interfere with the  traffic-rate-bytes (see section  7.1) 
   Policy may allow both filtering by traffic-rate-packets and traffic-rate-bytes. 
   If policy does not allow this, these two actions will conflict.      
/

If this fix  is acceptable to both of you, please let me know.  We will re-spin the draft. 

Sue Hares 


-----Original Message-----
From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2020 10:03 AM
To: Alvaro Retana
Cc: draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis@ietf.org; idr-chairs@ietf.org; idr@ietf.org; IESG
Subject: Re: [Idr] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-22: (with DISCUSS)

Hi Alvaro,

> On Apr 22, 2020, at 9:53 AM, Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On April 22, 2020 at 9:46:15 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
> 
> 
> Alissa:
> 
> Hi!
> 
> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> -
>> DISCUSS:
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> -
>> 
>> Apologies as this may be a really silly question, but isn't it 
>> possible for traffic-rate-bytes and traffic-rate-packets to interfere with each other?
>> That is, if by mistake a flow specification shows up containing both 
>> actions and they contradict each other (e.g., 0 bytes but 1M 
>> packets), how is that situation supposed to be handled?
> 
> See §7.7.  It is left to the implementation to decide which filtering 
> action to use.

Right, but 7.1 and 7.2 say that traffic-rate-bytes and traffic-rate-packets don’t interfere with each other (or any other filtering actions specified), so presumably 7.7 does not apply? 

Alissa

> 
> 
> Alvaro.

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
Idr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr