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. > >
- [OPSAWG] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-opsawg… Joel Halpern
- Re: [OPSAWG] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-op… Randy Bush
- Re: [OPSAWG] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-op… li zhenqiang
- Re: [OPSAWG] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-op… heasley
- Re: [OPSAWG] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-op… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [OPSAWG] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-op… Randy Bush
- Re: [OPSAWG] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-op… Randy Bush
- Re: [OPSAWG] [Gen-art] Rtgdir early review of dra… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [OPSAWG] [Gen-art] Rtgdir early review of dra… Randy Bush
- Re: [OPSAWG] [Gen-art] Rtgdir early review of dra… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [OPSAWG] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-op… Tianran Zhou
- Re: [OPSAWG] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-op… Dongjie (Jimmy)
- Re: [OPSAWG] [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir early review of dra… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [OPSAWG] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-op… Randy Bush
- Re: [OPSAWG] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-op… Tianran Zhou
- Re: [OPSAWG] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-op… heasley
- Re: [OPSAWG] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-op… heasley
- Re: [OPSAWG] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-op… Tianran Zhou
- [OPSAWG] 回复: RE: Rtgdir early review of draft-iet… li zhenqiang
- Re: [OPSAWG] 回复: RE: Rtgdir early review of draft… Ignas Bagdonas