Re: [IPFIX] Search comments and feedbacks about the draft of IPFIX IE extension when considering BGP community

"" <> Fri, 29 July 2016 09:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71CFC12D954; Fri, 29 Jul 2016 02:32:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=1.989, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YkxBGai0b1An; Fri, 29 Jul 2016 02:32:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 644A412D1EB; Fri, 29 Jul 2016 02:32:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown[]) by rmmx-syy-dmz-app03-12003 (RichMail) with SMTP id 2ee3579b22a1162-5c342; Fri, 29 Jul 2016 17:32:18 +0800 (CST)
X-RM-TRANSID: 2ee3579b22a1162-5c342
X-RM-SPAM-FLAG: 00000000
Received: from cmcc-PC (unknown[]) by rmsmtp-syy-appsvr01-12001 (RichMail) with SMTP id 2ee1579b22a1b03-23959; Fri, 29 Jul 2016 17:32:18 +0800 (CST)
X-RM-TRANSID: 2ee1579b22a1b03-23959
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 17:32:32 +0800
From: "" <>
To: Benoit Claise <>, PJ Aitken <>, gurong <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "Dongjie (Jimmy)" <>
References: <002501d1e1c2$8fb45440$af1cfcc0$>, <>, <>, <>
X-Priority: 3
X-Has-Attach: no
X-Mailer: Foxmail 7, 2, 7, 164[cn]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart882434585205_=----"
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, Brian Trammell <>
Subject: Re: [IPFIX] Search comments and feedbacks about the draft of IPFIX IE extension when considering BGP community
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 09:32:30 -0000

Hello Benoit Claise and all,

Yes, you are right. But what we want to introduce are two new IEs, not new IE types. We use the IE type basicList defined in RFC6313 to specify our IEs. The expected semantics is list, which represents an arbitrary-length sequence of zero or more structured data Information Elements. 

basicList content is determied by the IE number. 458 is suggested for bgpSourceCommunityList, BGP community information corresponding with source IP address of the specific flow SHOULD be encoded in the basicList content field of this IE. 459 is suggested for bgpDestinationCommunityList, BGP community information corresponding with destination IP address of the specific flow SHOULD be encoded in the basicList content field of this IE.

Best Regards,
From: Benoit Claise
Date: 2016-07-24 06:22
To: PJ Aitken; Ariel Gu; ipfix; n.brownlee; quittek
CC: lizhenqiang; Brian Trammell;
Subject: Re: [IPFIX] Search comments and feedbacks about the draft of IPFIX IE extension when considering BGP community
On 7/20/2016 4:49 PM, PJ Aitken wrote:
When a draft specifies one of the list types, should it also specify the type of the list elements and the expected semantics?
Yes. And I suppose that it would come from a BGP community reference in a BGP RFC in this case.

Regards, B.

Else we could have non-interoperable implementations exporting the same "IANA standard" information element, where one is a "basicList of X" while another is a "basicList of Y".
ie, although the IE is the same, the basicList Field ID and semantics are different. See RFC 6313, Figure 1.)

eg, the BGP community draft referenced below creates a new bgpSourceCommunityList. I suppose this may be a list of bgpSourceAsNumber, but that's not specified in the draft - so it could equally be a list of sourceIPv4Address or any other IE.

Alternatively, devices could simply export IE #291 (basicList), with the bgpSourceCommunityList and bgpDestinationCommunityList disambiguated by the basicList Field ID contained in the basicList header. However that would be horrendous for collectors...


On 20/07/16 08:12, Benoit Claise wrote:
Dear all,

We know that the IANA considerations mentions "expert review" for the IPFIX registry.
This BGP community is actually a special IPFIX Information Element as this is the first one based on RFC 6313  (basicList, subTemplateList, subTemplateMultiList) 
So it deserves special attention, review, and potential documentation as its own RFC.

Regards, Benoit
Hi, dear all.
Nice meeting you in the mail-list of IPFIX. This IETF in Berlin right now, we submit a draft and present it about the IPFIX IE extension when considering BGP community. I’m looking for comments and feedbacks about our idea in new IE added in exporting the flow information correlated with BGP community. As dear chair told me that the mail-list is still alive, I follow the suggestion of putting my draft here and searching for advice and suggestions in the right place. 
Before that, I made a short summary of my draft which may be helpful in quick looking at the draft. When we consider traffic steering in our backbone network, we feel that the flow information based on BGP community is quite suitable. That’s the reason why we write the draft. And we now recommend two IEs which may be assigned by IANA: bgpSourceCommunityList and bgpDestinationCommunityList. 
If you are facing up with this situations as us, then we can discuss about the IEs especially the details. 
The information of my draft:
I’m looking forward for your comments.
Best regards and have a nice trip in Berlin.
Rong Gu
China Mobile Research Institute
No.32 Xuanwumen West Street, Xicheng District
Beijing, China, 100053
Mobile: +86 13811520541
Phone: +86 10 15801696688 Ext. 36211

IPFIX mailing list