--- 1/draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-03.txt 2017-07-03 01:13:09.530419307 -0700 +++ 2/draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-04.txt 2017-07-03 01:13:09.594420830 -0700 @@ -1,25 +1,25 @@ IDR Working Group S. Hares Internet-Draft Huawei -Obsoletes: 5575,7674 (if approved) R. Raszuk -Intended status: Standards Track Bloomberg LP -Expires: December 31, 2017 D. McPherson +Obsoletes: 5575,7674 (if approved) C. Loibl +Intended status: Standards Track Next Layer Communications +Expires: January 3, 2018 R. Raszuk + Bloomberg LP + D. McPherson Verisign - C. Loibl - Next Layer Communications M. Bacher T-Mobile Austria - June 29, 2017 + July 2, 2017 Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules - draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-03 + draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-04 Abstract This document updates RFC5575 which defines a Border Gateway Protocol Network Layer Reachability Information (BGP NLRI) encoding format that can be used to distribute traffic flow specifications. This allows the routing system to propagate information regarding more specific components of the traffic aggregate defined by an IP destination prefix. This draft specifies IPv4 traffic flow specifications via a BGP NLRI which carries traffic flow @@ -51,21 +51,21 @@ 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 http://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 December 31, 2017. + This Internet-Draft will expire on January 3, 2018. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2017 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 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents @@ -118,21 +118,22 @@ 11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 11.1. AFI/SAFI Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 11.2. Flow Component Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 11.3. Extended Community Flow Specification Actions . . . . . 25 12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 13. Original authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 14. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 15. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 15.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 15.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 - Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 + Appendix A. Comparison with RFC 5575 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 + Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 1. Introduction Modern IP routers contain both the capability to forward traffic according to IP prefixes as well as to classify, shape, rate limit, filter, or redirect packets based on administratively defined policies. These traffic policy mechanisms allow the router to define match rules that operate on multiple fields of the packet header. Actions @@ -1404,49 +1405,82 @@ [I-D.ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6] McPherson, D., Raszuk, R., Pithawala, B., akarch@cisco.com, a., and S. Hares, "Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules for IPv6", draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec- v6-08 (work in progress), March 2017. [RFC4303] Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)", RFC 4303, DOI 10.17487/RFC4303, December 2005, . +Appendix A. Comparison with RFC 5575 + + This document includes numerous editorial changes to [RFC5575]. It + is recommended to read the entire document. The authors, however + want to point out the following technical changes to [RFC5575]: + + Section 4.2.3 defines a numeric operator and comparison bit + combinations. In [RFC5575] the meaning of those bit combination + was not explicitly defined and left open to the reader. + + Section 4.2.3 - Section 4.2.8, Section 4.2.10, Section 4.2.11 make + use of the above numeric operator. The allowed length of the + comparison value was not consistently defined in [RFC5575]. + + Section 7 defines all traffic action extended communities as + transitive extended communities. [RFC5575] defined the traffic- + rate action to be non-transitive and did not define the + transitivity of the other action communities at all. + + Section 7.2 introduces a new traffic filtering action (traffic- + rate-packets). This action did not exist in [RFC5575]. + + Section 7.4 contains the same redirect actions already defined in + [RFC5575] however, these actions have been renamed to "rt- + redirect" to make it clearer that the redirection is based on + route-target. + + Section 7.6 introduces rules how updates of flow specifications + shall be handled in case they contain interfering actions. + Section 7.3 also cross-references this section. [RFC5575] did not + define this. + Authors' Addresses Susan Hares Huawei 7453 Hickory Hill Saline, MI 48176 USA Email: shares@ndzh.com + Christoph Loibl + Next Layer Communications + Mariahilfer Guertel 37/7 + Vienna 1150 + AT + + Phone: +43 664 1176414 + Email: cl@tix.at + Robert Raszuk Bloomberg LP 731 Lexington Ave New York City, NY 10022 USA Email: robert@raszuk.net Danny McPherson Verisign USA Email: dmcpherson@verisign.com - Christoph Loibl - Next Layer Communications - Mariahilfer Guertel 37/7 - Vienna 1150 - AT - - Phone: +43 664 1176414 - Email: cl@tix.at Martin Bacher T-Mobile Austria Rennweg 97-99 Vienna 1030 AT Email: mb.ietf@gmail.com