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

[PJ Aitken <[e-mail]>]

Li, could you draw an example IPFIX template and data record showing the 
encoding of the bgpSourceCommunityList and bgpDestinationCommunityList ?

This would be a useful appendix in the draft.

P.

On 29/07/16 10:56, [e-mail] wrote:
> Hi P. Aitken,
>
> Yes, you are right. We need two IE IDs for each basicList. But 291 is 
> already there, it is for the IPFIX template IE ID, not 458 or 459.
> 458 or 459 is for the type of each list element. It goes in the Field 
> ID of the basicList.
>
> bgpSourceCommunityList (458) = basic list(291) of bgp community 
> infromation (defined in RFC1997)  corresponding with source IP address
> bgpDestinationCommunityList (459) = basic list(291) of bgp community 
> infromation (defined in RFC1997) 
>  corresponding with destination IP address
>
> Here, basic list meas zero or more bgp communities will be contained 
> in the data set.
>
> Best Regards,
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [e-mail]
>
>     *From:* Paul Aitken <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     *Date:* 2016-07-29 16:30
>     *To:* [e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>; PJ Aitken
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>; Benoit Claise
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>; gurong
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>; Dongjie (Jimmy)
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     *CC:* [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>; Brian
>     Trammell <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     *Subject:* Re: [Ie-doctors] [IPFIX] Search comments and feedbacks
>     about the draft of IPFIX IE extension when considering BGP community
>     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
>