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

"Joel M. Halpern" <> Sun, 15 April 2018 16:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54B79126BF6; Sun, 15 Apr 2018 09:32:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.62
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.62 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aPfeUWDiCdfr; Sun, 15 Apr 2018 09:32:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9ABB61252BA; Sun, 15 Apr 2018 09:32:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (helo=Joels-MacBook-Pro.local) by with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4) (envelope-from <>) id 1f7kaA-000AUk-8Z; Sun, 15 Apr 2018 12:32:50 -0400
To: heasley <>, li zhenqiang <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, opsawg <>
References: <> <> <>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2018 12:32:49 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ELNK-Trace: 9f083ca8aeb2d326d5a073bfd238dd844d2b10475b571120734a4ffe2a0ea2592dc3f293bed07b4457819198b14afb1e350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-06
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2018 16:32:54 -0000

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.


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
> to find the geo tag values of various ASes.