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

"" <> Fri, 29 July 2016 08:10 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02C0412D5F6; Fri, 29 Jul 2016 01:10:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.886
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.886 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, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Pj_XragpliFa; Fri, 29 Jul 2016 01:10:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99F1A12D5AA; Fri, 29 Jul 2016 01:10:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown[]) by rmmx-syy-dmz-app09-12009 (RichMail) with SMTP id 2ee9579b0f6c645-58768; Fri, 29 Jul 2016 16:10:20 +0800 (CST)
X-RM-TRANSID: 2ee9579b0f6c645-58768
X-RM-SPAM-FLAG: 00000000
Received: from cmcc-PC (unknown[]) by rmsmtp-syy-appsvr03-12003 (RichMail) with SMTP id 2ee3579b0f6ab20-a522e; Fri, 29 Jul 2016 16:10:20 +0800 (CST)
X-RM-TRANSID: 2ee3579b0f6ab20-a522e
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 16:10:33 +0800
From: "" <>
To: PJ Aitken <>, Benoit Claise <>, 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_NextPart310823743411_=----"
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 08:10:32 -0000

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,
From: PJ Aitken
Date: 2016-07-20 22:49
To: Benoit Claise; Ariel Gu;;;
CC: lizhenqiang; Brian Trammell;
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...


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