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

Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Fri, 13 April 2018 14:44 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
X-Original-To: opsawg@ietf.org
Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFB25126CC7; Fri, 13 Apr 2018 07:44:28 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
To: <rtg-dir@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community.all@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, opsawg@ietf.org, gen-art@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.78.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <152363066886.26321.3212300538180273898@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2018 07:44:28 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/uNwykciJuo0Y-Fpmxv6eFea0wWE>
Subject: [OPSAWG] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-06
X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Fri, 13 Apr 2018 14:44:29 -0000

Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review result: Not Ready

This is both a gen-art re-review and a routing directorate requested review.

The revisions from draft-04 to -06 show some improvement.  However, I still
have serious problems with this work.

The primary problem is that this seems to violate the designed work
distribution in the IPFIX architecture.  The draft itself notes that the
correlation requested could be done in the collector.  Which is where
correlation is designed to be done.  Instead, it puts a significant new
processing load on the router that is delivering the IPFIX information.  For
example, if one delivers IPFIX from the router data plane, one either has to
modify the router architecture to include additional complex computed
information in the data plane architecture (a bad place to add complexity) or
one has to give up and move all the information through the control plane.  And
even the control plane likely has to add complexity to its RIB logic, as it has
to move additional information from BGP to the common structures.

The secondary problem is that this additional work is justified for the router
by the claim that the unusual usage of applying community tags for geographical
location of customers is a common practice.  It is a legal practice.  And I
presume it is done somewhere or the authors would not be asking for it.   But
it is not common.

In short, since even the draft admits that this is not needed, I recommend
against publishing this document as an RFC.