Re: [OSPF] New Version Notification for draft-liang-ospf-flowspec-extensions-01.txt

Hannes Gredler <hannes@juniper.net> Wed, 08 October 2014 15:54 UTC

Return-Path: <hannes@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 592161A0300 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Oct 2014 08:54:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 14VaRSfOd-dO for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Oct 2014 08:54:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1bon0710.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fc10::1:710]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 314881A0308 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Oct 2014 08:54:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hannes-mba.local (193.110.55.13) by CO1PR05MB443.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.73.152) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1044.10; Wed, 8 Oct 2014 15:54:02 +0000
Received: from hannes-mba.local (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by hannes-mba.local (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B8FC43AEEF; Wed, 8 Oct 2014 17:53:51 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2014 17:53:50 +0200
From: Hannes Gredler <hannes@juniper.net>
To: "Osborne, Eric" <eric.osborne@level3.com>
Message-ID: <20141008155350.GB34437@hannes-mba.local>
References: <F6C28B32DA084644BB6C8D0BD65B669D11A0A9@nkgeml509-mbs.china.huawei.com> <63CB93BC589C1B4BAFDB41A0A19B7ACDF930C2@USIDCWVEMBX08.corp.global.level3.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <63CB93BC589C1B4BAFDB41A0A19B7ACDF930C2@USIDCWVEMBX08.corp.global.level3.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
X-Originating-IP: [193.110.55.13]
X-ClientProxiedBy: DB4PR06CA0026.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com (25.160.40.154) To CO1PR05MB443.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.73.152)
X-Microsoft-Antispam: UriScan:;
X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:CO1PR05MB443;
X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-Test: UriScan:;
X-Forefront-PRVS: 0358535363
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(13464003)(53754006)(377424004)(24454002)(199003)(377454003)(189002)(122386002)(15202345003)(85306004)(92566001)(230783001)(66066001)(19580395003)(83506001)(50466002)(102836001)(15975445006)(20776003)(23676002)(19580405001)(122856001)(4396001)(64706001)(101416001)(47776003)(92726001)(76176999)(50986999)(76506005)(87976001)(77096002)(107046002)(97736003)(95666004)(105586002)(106356001)(31966008)(54356999)(80022003)(98436002)(85852003)(76482002)(40100002)(21056001)(120916001)(33656002)(99396003)(86362001)(46102003)(110136001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:CO1PR05MB443; H:hannes-mba.local; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/CORb-LZSdSrIR3Ve5i1BqeYhfZc
Cc: "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] New Version Notification for draft-liang-ospf-flowspec-extensions-01.txt
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <ospf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ospf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ospf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2014 15:54:28 -0000

+1

it would be furthermore interesting to hear from the authors how
OSPF behaves once a massive scale of flow-routes 
(lets say in the order of > 100K is injected into OSPF).

/hannes

On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 03:45:24PM +0000, Osborne, Eric wrote:
| I'm not sure this has much value.  The vast majority of dynamic PE-CE is done with BGP; the little bit that isn't BGP is, in my experience, RIP.  I don't think I've seen many (any?) OSPF PE-CE deployments.  
| 
| 
| 
| 
| eric
| 
| -----Original Message-----
| From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Youjianjie
| Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 10:11 PM
| To: ospf@ietf.org
| Subject: [OSPF] 转发: New Version Notification for draft-liang-ospf-flowspec-extensions-01.txt
| 
| Hi all,
| 
| This document discusses the use cases that OSPF is used to distribute FlowSpec routes. This document also defines a new OSPF FlowSpec Opaque Link State Advertisement (LSA) encoding format.
| Your comments are appreciated.
| 
| Best Regards,
| Jianjie
| 
| -----邮件原件-----
| 发件人: internet-drafts@ietf.org [mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org] 
| 发送时间: 2014年9月28日 10:32
| 收件人: Youjianjie; Youjianjie; liuweihang; liuweihang
| 主题: New Version Notification for draft-liang-ospf-flowspec-extensions-01.txt
| 
| 
| A new version of I-D, draft-liang-ospf-flowspec-extensions-01.txt
| has been successfully submitted by Jianjie You and posted to the IETF repository.
| 
| Name:		draft-liang-ospf-flowspec-extensions
| Revision:	01
| Title:		OSPF Extensions for Flow Specification
| Document date:	2014-09-27
| Group:		Individual Submission
| Pages:		11
| URL:            http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-liang-ospf-flowspec-extensions-01.txt
| Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-liang-ospf-flowspec-extensions/
| Htmlized:       http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-liang-ospf-flowspec-extensions-01
| Diff:           http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-liang-ospf-flowspec-extensions-01
| 
| Abstract:
|    This document discusses the use cases why OSPF (Open Shortest Path
|    First) distributing flow specification (FlowSpec) routes is
|    necessary.  This document also defines a new OSPF FlowSpec Opaque
|    Link State Advertisement (LSA) encoding format that can be used to
|    distribute FlowSpec routes.
| 
|    For the network only deploying IGP (Interior Gateway Protocol) (e.g.
|    OSPF), it is expected to extend IGP to distribute FlowSpec routes.
|    One advantage is to mitigate the impacts of Denial-of-Service (DoS)
|    attacks.
| 
| 
|                                                                                   
| 
| 
| Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
| 
| The IETF Secretariat
| 
| _______________________________________________
| OSPF mailing list
| OSPF@ietf.org
| https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
| _______________________________________________
| OSPF mailing list
| OSPF@ietf.org
| https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf