Thank you Jimmy.
While I disagree, I think this states the case clearly enough for it to
be up to the working group and relevant ADs.
On 4/15/18 11:40 PM, Dongjie (Jimmy) wrote:
Thanks a lot for your review comments.
Regarding your first problem, I don't think this draft introduces "significant new
processing load on the router", as similar processing has already been done for the
BGP AS number and BGP-nexthop based traffic collection. As described in the draft, the
BGP-community based traffic collection is done by BGP lookup and correlating the BGP
community with the flow data to be exported. Whether it is done in data plane or control
plane is implementation specific and IMO does not belong to a IETF document.
As for your second problem, as many operators have pointed out, it is a common
case to use BGP communities to represent geo locations at various
granularities. So we need to provide them the tools to meet their requirements.
Standardizing the IEs for BGP community is a good start.
From: Joel Halpern [mailto:j...@joelhalpern.com]
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2018 10:44 PM
Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community....@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org;
Subject: Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-06
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
to move additional information from BGP to the common structures.
The secondary problem is that this additional work is justified for the router
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.
OPSAWG mailing list