--- 1/draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect-09.txt 2019-10-29 05:13:13.525375951 -0700 +++ 2/draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect-10.txt 2019-10-29 05:13:13.545376205 -0700 @@ -1,21 +1,21 @@ IDR Working Group G. Van de Velde, Ed. Internet-Draft Nokia Intended status: Standards Track K. Patel -Expires: February 20, 2020 Arrcus +Expires: May 1, 2020 Arrcus Z. Li Huawei Technologies - August 19, 2019 + October 29, 2019 Flowspec Indirection-id Redirect - draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect-09 + draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect-10 Abstract This document defines a new extended community known as "FlowSpec Redirect to indirection-id Extended Community". This extended community triggers advanced redirection capabilities to flowspec clients. When activated, this flowspec extended community is used by a flowspec client to retrieve the corresponding next-hop and encoding information within a localised indirection-id mapping table. @@ -37,21 +37,21 @@ Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." - This Internet-Draft will expire on February 20, 2020. + This Internet-Draft will expire on May 1, 2020. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents @@ -67,21 +67,21 @@ 2. indirection-id and indirection-id table . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Use Case Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.1. Redirection shortest Path tunnel . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.2. Redirection to path-engineered tunnels . . . . . . . . . 4 3.3. Redirection to complex dynamically constructed tunnels . 5 4. Redirect to indirection-id Community . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Redirect using localised indirection-id mapping table . . . . 8 6. Validation Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 9. Contributor Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 + 9. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 1. Introduction Flowspec is an extension to BGP that allows for the dissemination of traffic flow specification rules. This has many possible @@ -354,27 +354,26 @@ When a BGP flowspec client receives a flowspec policy route with a "Redirect to indirection-id" extended community attached, and the route represents the best BGP path, it will install a flowspec policy-based forwarding rule matching the tupples described by the flowpsec NLRI field and consequently redirects the flow (C=0) or copies the flow (C=1) using the information identified by the "Redirect to indirection-id" community. 6. Validation Procedures - The validation check described in rfc5575bis [3] and revised in [2] - SHOULD be applied by default by a flowspec client, for received - flowspec policy routes containing a "Redirect to indirection-id" - extended community. This results that a flowspec route with a - destination prefix subcomponent SHOULD NOT be accepted from an EBGP - peer unless that peer also advertised the best path for the matching - unicast route. + The validation check described in rfc5575bis [3] SHOULD be applied by + default by a flowspec client, for received flowspec policy routes + containing a "Redirect to indirection-id" extended community. This + results that a flowspec route with a destination prefix subcomponent + SHOULD NOT be accepted from an EBGP peer unless that peer also + advertised the best path for the matching unicast route. While it MUST NOT happen, and is seen as invalid combination, it is possible from a semantics perspective to have multiple clashing redirect actions defined within a single flowspec rule. For best and consistant compatibility with legacy implementations, the redirect functionality as documented by rfc5575bis MUST NOT be broken, and hence when a clash occurs, then rfc5575bis based redirect MUST take priority. Additionally, if the "Redirect to indirection-id" does not result in a valid redirection, then the flowspec rule MUST be processed as if the "Redirect to indirection-id" community was not @@ -387,31 +386,29 @@ A system using "Redirect to indirection-id" extended community can cause during the redirect mitigation of a DDoS attack overflow of traffic received by the mitigation infrastructure. 8. Acknowledgements This document received valuable comments and input from IDR working group including Adam Simpson, Mustapha Aissaoui, Jan Mertens, Robert Raszuk, Jeff Haas, Susan Hares and Lucy Yong. -9. Contributor Addresses +9. Contributors - Below is a list of other contributing authors in alphabetical order: + The following people contributed to the content of this document and + should be considered as co-authors: Arjun Sreekantiah - Cisco Systems - 170 W. Tasman Drive - San Jose, CA 95134 USA - Email: asreekan@cisco.com + Email: arjunhrs@gmail.com Nan Wu Huawei Technologies Huawei Bld., No. 156 Beiquing Rd Beijing 100095 China Email: eric.wu@huawei.com Shunwan Zhuang