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

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Sat, 23 July 2016 22:22 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
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 964FE12D7F6; Sat, 23 Jul 2016 15:22:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -13.818
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-13.818 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, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=1.989, 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 2AkgOB8fVvGN; Sat, 23 Jul 2016 15:22:40 -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 7102D12D7F3; Sat, 23 Jul 2016 15:22:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=15708; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1469312559; x=1470522159; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=1/rRtpb/jHF+vzOhvwIIB2GL/JmJvKK4JvYCyYQYGvg=; b=YDWDK/a2TgqAD7iSYFV6FCIzzKHhrGA+y0U5NY2CsWJAHaU5hxablLYQ AxuRzE1QK6GkrzrrrmTAkMDOzWpeZByd+LyxYBd2EAPQgVYKwAqtOwBax XWipFJthnRr0H0vC1IwzUXPc7KEwm/M/aH32/enOG9sW1Cd0PCZbEsdUw Y=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0DgBwBP65NX/xbLJq1dDoJjgSQqUrB0g?= =?us-ascii?q?mqCdoQLIoV6AoF0AQEBAQEBXieEXQEFLT4DCw4CCxgjBAcbKxEGAQwGAgEBEIg?= =?us-ascii?q?cDrgLAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBHAWGJYF4CIJNhBIQAgEhhVUBBIYKg?= =?us-ascii?q?haRBoYWhW6CaoI6hxmFaJAhVII+ej06MgEBAYdnAQEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,411,1464652800"; d="scan'208,217";a="639021053"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 23 Jul 2016 22:22:37 +0000
Received: from [10.61.98.115] (dhcp-10-61-98-115.cisco.com [10.61.98.115]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u6NMMaoQ030687; Sat, 23 Jul 2016 22:22:36 GMT
To: PJ Aitken <paitken@brocade.com>, Ariel Gu <gurong@chinamobile.com>, ipfix@ietf.org, n.brownlee@auckland.ac.nz, quittek@neclab.eu
References: <002501d1e1c2$8fb45440$af1cfcc0$@chinamobile.com> <321dd0a3-986a-6df2-ca29-d414929f36bc@cisco.com> <2be28848-168f-d52b-3832-d24725c3bf54@brocade.com>
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <df8156b0-2775-b7e3-91bd-302771a44de6@cisco.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2016 00:22:36 +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: <2be28848-168f-d52b-3832-d24725c3bf54@brocade.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------253AB2D111CE4F2F77F453F9"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipfix/z3ak8dtEiZ1aD5Wl3DTn2xZbf5E>
Cc: "ie-doctors@ietf.org" <ie-doctors@ietf.org>, lizhenqiang <lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com>, Brian Trammell <trammell@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
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 <ipfix.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipfix>, <mailto:ipfix-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipfix/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipfix@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipfix-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix>, <mailto:ipfix-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2016 22:22:42 -0000

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...
>
> 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: +86 13811520541
>>> Phone: +86 10 15801696688 Ext. 36211
>>> Email: gurong@chinamobile.com <mailto:huanglu@chinamobile.com>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> IPFIX mailing list
>> IPFIX@ietf.org
>> 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=  
>