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

[Paul Aitken <[e-mail]>]

Li, two Information Element IDs are required for each basicList:


The first Information Element is the basicList itself. This element ID 
goes in the IPFIX template "Information Element id" field as usual, per 
figures G and L of RFC 7011. Effectively this is the outer "container" 
element.

IDs 458 and 459 define basicList Information Elements, so these are the 
first (outer, container) elements.


The second Information Element describes the type of each list element. 
This goes in the basicList Field ID per Figure 1 of RFC 6313. 
Effectively this is the inner "contained" element.

It's these second (inner, contained) elements which are missing.


Practically, we could have:

     bgpSourceCommunityList (458) = list of bgpSourceAsNumber (16)

or

     bgpSourceCommunityList (458) = list of sourceIPv4Address (8)

or in fact any other Information Element could be used as the "list of 
..." element.


In order to ensure this Information Element is interoperable, the 
missing element ID should be clearly stated in the draft.

P.


On 29/07/2016 09:10, [e-mail] wrote:
> Hello P. Aitken and all,
>
> If the suggested IE numbers are assigned by IANA, 458 not 291 SHOULD 
> be encoded in the Field ID field in the basicList for 
> bgpSourceCommunityList, and 459 SHOULD be encoded for 
> bgpDestinationCommunityList.
>
> basicList is an IE type defined in RFC6313. We can use this type to 
> define new IEs if type basicList is applicable.
>
> Sorry for delayed response.
>
> Best Regards,
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [e-mail]
>
>     *From:* PJ Aitken <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     *Date:* 2016-07-20 22:49
>     *To:* Benoit Claise <mailto:[e-mail]>; Ariel Gu
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     *CC:* lizhenqiang <mailto:[e-mail]>; Brian
>     Trammell <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     *Subject:* Re: [IPFIX] Search comments and feedbacks about the
>     draft of IPFIX IE extension when considering BGP community
>     When a draft specifies one of the list types, should it also
>     specify the type of the list elements and the expected semantics?
>
>     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...
>
>     P.
>
>
>     On 20/07/16 08:12, Benoit Claise wrote:
>>     Dear all,
>>
>>     We know that the IANA considerations
>>     <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_rfc7012-23section-2D7&d=CwMDEA&c=IL_XqQWOjubgfqINi2jTzg&r=Xx9729xYDYoCgBDdcp1FKt5PyYd1TCoXNKhyPY8CFp8&m=ZslthyAR_pCMk0ceVDm68IQNaZBed3zfEKAlZ4zaux4&s=PT25lVmWADTBAoRFJls07fJ6PTOd2XWc0L4bTWxB3MY&e=>
>>     mentions "expert review" for the IPFIX registry
>>     <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.iana.org_assignments_ipfix_ipfix.xhtml&d=CwMDEA&c=IL_XqQWOjubgfqINi2jTzg&r=Xx9729xYDYoCgBDdcp1FKt5PyYd1TCoXNKhyPY8CFp8&m=ZslthyAR_pCMk0ceVDm68IQNaZBed3zfEKAlZ4zaux4&s=tbt3wdaVgevcKVTqBEKX_MhNO7g_oaW3XiywAp65WgY&e=>.
>>     This BGP community is actually a special IPFIX Information
>>     Element as this is the first one based on RFC 6313
>>     <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_rfc6313&d=CwMDEA&c=IL_XqQWOjubgfqINi2jTzg&r=Xx9729xYDYoCgBDdcp1FKt5PyYd1TCoXNKhyPY8CFp8&m=ZslthyAR_pCMk0ceVDm68IQNaZBed3zfEKAlZ4zaux4&s=R9ipRubr7eEQrMnskDLzBjeZqhpnmefnWc59t3_ab7s&e=>(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:
>>>     https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-li-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-00.txt
>>>     <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_internet-2Ddrafts_draft-2Dli-2Dopsawg-2Dipfix-2Dbgp-2Dcommunity-2D00.txt&d=CwMDEA&c=IL_XqQWOjubgfqINi2jTzg&r=Xx9729xYDYoCgBDdcp1FKt5PyYd1TCoXNKhyPY8CFp8&m=ZslthyAR_pCMk0ceVDm68IQNaZBed3zfEKAlZ4zaux4&s=T9dMbA_3xk8ZMfCI0dkNONKt1xL04aoMa8vn_-9FBns&e=>
>>>
>>>     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: [phone]
>>>     Phone: [phone] Ext. 36211
>>>     Email: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     IPFIX mailing list
>>     [e-mail]
>>     https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_ipfix&d=CwICAg&c=IL_XqQWOjubgfqINi2jTzg&r=Xx9729xYDYoCgBDdcp1FKt5PyYd1TCoXNKhyPY8CFp8&m=ZslthyAR_pCMk0ceVDm68IQNaZBed3zfEKAlZ4zaux4&s=mL0br6tuMk78xRPYaHEPxZ5usdrXvvMI1C_g105zdws&e=  
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ie-doctors mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ie-doctors