Re: [OPSAWG] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-06

Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com> Mon, 16 April 2018 03:39 UTC

Return-Path: <zhoutianran@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8874912D77C; Sun, 15 Apr 2018 20:39:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 uLM6dUn7s_Ga; Sun, 15 Apr 2018 20:39:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 00E3C1204DA; Sun, 15 Apr 2018 20:39:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from LHREML712-CAH.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.106]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 93B164BCB6247; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 04:39:29 +0100 (IST)
Received: from NKGEML412-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.73) by LHREML712-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.382.0; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 04:39:31 +0100
Received: from NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com ([fe80::a54a:89d2:c471:ff]) by nkgeml412-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.73]) with mapi id 14.03.0361.001; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 11:39:25 +0800
From: Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com>
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <joel@stevecrocker.com>, heasley <heas@shrubbery.net>, li zhenqiang <li_zhenqiang@hotmail.com>
CC: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community.all@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, opsawg <opsawg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-06
Thread-Index: AQHT0zX1x60GZaZE206pZAQJbOzf56QBe9sAgAAGZYCAATo/QA==
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 03:39:25 +0000
Message-ID: <BBA82579FD347748BEADC4C445EA0F21A6D62DC8@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <152363066886.26321.3212300538180273898@ietfa.amsl.com> <HKXPR0601MB1799868866AF89F9699EAF28FCB10@HKXPR0601MB1799.apcprd06.prod.outlook.com> <20180415160956.GC66082@shrubbery.net> <ace47a71-0e9d-6a0d-ae37-1f4bc48ada0b@stevecrocker.com>
In-Reply-To: <ace47a71-0e9d-6a0d-ae37-1f4bc48ada0b@stevecrocker.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.156.116]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/G0HKzgIvJaPhPiNWF-psUw6oDag>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-06
X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List <opsawg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/opsawg/>
List-Post: <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 03:39:35 -0000

Hi Joel,

> From what I can tell reading this, the value requires significantly more
> precision than "region".

As far as I can see, this document proposed a new aggregation parameter for IPFIX. So that the operators can get the traffic statistic from a new dimension.
Because "Flow information based on IP address or IP prefix may provide much too fine granularity for a large network. On the contrary, flow information based on AS number may be too coarse."
It sounds reasonable.


Tianran

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:joel@stevecrocker.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 12:33 AM
> To: heasley <heas@shrubbery.net>;; li zhenqiang <li_zhenqiang@hotmail.com>;
> Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org; gen-art@ietf.org;
> draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community.all@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; opsawg
> <opsawg@ietf.org>;
> Subject: Re: Rtgdir early review of
> draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-06
> 
> Thank you for that pointer.  It is informative.
> I looked at a number of the entries (trying to pick larger ISPs as more likely
> to need more information.) What i see is some ISPs doing what Randy Bush
> mentioned, marking regions.  I see a few ISPs that explicitly mark country
> (or in one case city).  I see some that mix several pieces of information
> including country in the same community, making it hard to perform what this
> I-D calls for (not impossible, just harder).  I do not see any indication
> of wide-spread consistency.
> 
> It appears that this is of use to a few ISPs.  I have never argued that no
> one wants this (the authors would not have written it if no one wanted it.)
> 
>  From what I can tell reading this, the value requires significantly more
> precision than "region".
> 
> Also, one of the arguments for doing this in the router is that you can get
> more timely and precise correlation.  Except that for geolocation of address
> blocks, upstream correlation seems to be quite sufficiently stable and
> precise.  NLRI may come and go.  I fone has geo-information, it is unlikely
> to change.
> 
> Yours,
> Joel
> 
> 
> On 4/15/18 12:09 PM, heasley wrote:
> > Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 02:52:43PM +0000, li zhenqiang:
> >> Why do you think this is unusual and not common?
> >
> > Possibly, with due respect, because he is not an operator?  While ASes
> > often do so internally, not all reveal it externally or not
> > ubiquitously.  Browse https://onestep.net/communities/ to find the geo
> tag values of various ASes.
> >