Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB6D412DA1C for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2016 00:12:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.807 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.807 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com 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 ecZzKsmK7TyM for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2016 00:12:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 68C4D12D0DE for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2016 00:12:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=8848; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1468998726; x=1470208326; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=p1KtcOIEett+xbRDgdrkgJBH/wvAe2pUSmUaELaNJYY=; b=hN5vq7wJ99InWBw4eymAT8LihKs7mDAuSV7dG+OXRbiGGKV6Vv2hm4ph 78vupAY3TyV/h363MUqfge2t4avTjMgRn4JbJmGYk2n/znPvpkTNC1irQ wV6oAeizdo4jCH4yO1MNnIckZtbLZwv3GzOgdwK8xni3+jOdxKm+g5MbN M=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0BNDwCfI49X/xbLJq1dDoJjgSQqUrNqg?= =?us-ascii?q?nWECSSFdgKBfwEBAQEBAWYnhF0BBAEtPg4FCQILOwQHGysRBgEMBgIBARCIFAg?= =?us-ascii?q?OvTEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEXBQWGJYF4glWEEhACASGFVQEEhgqCF?= =?us-ascii?q?ZEHhhOFboJhiVGFZ5AgVII+ej06MgGHbwEBAQ?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,393,1464652800"; d="scan'208,217";a="638684910" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 20 Jul 2016 07:12:04 +0000 Received: from [10.61.242.49] ([10.61.242.49]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u6K7C4pc026547; Wed, 20 Jul 2016 07:12:04 GMT To: Ariel Gu , ipfix@ietf.org, n.brownlee@auckland.ac.nz, quittek@neclab.eu References: <002501d1e1c2$8fb45440$af1cfcc0$@chinamobile.com> From: Benoit Claise Message-ID: <321dd0a3-986a-6df2-ca29-d414929f36bc@cisco.com> Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 09:12:03 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <002501d1e1c2$8fb45440$af1cfcc0$@chinamobile.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------8480352CD207A395A6CB4B71" Archived-At: Cc: lizhenqiang , Brian Trammell Subject: Re: [IPFIX] Search comments and feedbacks about the draft of IPFIX IE extension when considering BGP community X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org 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: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 07:12:09 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------8480352CD207A395A6CB4B71 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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: > https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-li-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-00.txt > > 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 > Email: gurong@chinamobile.com > --------------8480352CD207A395A6CB4B71 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
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: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-li-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-00.txt

 

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
Email: gurong@chinamobile.com

 

 


--------------8480352CD207A395A6CB4B71--