tf.org>>;opsawg<opsawg@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>>
主题： Re: Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-06
时间： 2018-04-17 23:49:16
Why is there IPR on this draft? Is this because of section 3? A section
that is unnecessary and could be entirely removed with
Why is there IPR on this draft? Is this because of section 3? A section
that is unnecessary and could be entirely removed without affecting the
draft in any manner?
Otherwise, I think it absolutely absurd that there is IPR on this document.
___
Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 12:32:49PM -0400, Joel M. Halpern:
> (the authors would not have written it if no one wanted it.)
eh, that might not be a valid argument :)
> Also, one of the arguments for doing this in the router is that you can
> get more timely and precise correlation. Except that for
> iff i can select which community's or communities' values form the sampling
> bucket(s), this seems reasonable. if i am community transparent, i probably
> don't want a bucket for each community on my inbound set.
Yes, this sounds better. It can be achieved by configuring the intermediate
> As far as I can see, this document proposed a new aggregation
> parameter for IPFIX. So that the operators can get the traffic
> statistic from a new dimension.
>
> Because "Flow information based on IP address or IP prefix may provide
> much too fine granularity for a large network. On the
Hi Joel,
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
stevecrocker.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 12:33 AM
> To: heasley <h...@shrubbery.net>; li zhenqiang <li_zhenqi...@hotmail.com>
> Cc: rtg-...@ietf.org; gen-...@ietf.org;
> draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org; opsawg
> <opsawg@ietf.org>
> I fone has geo-information, it is unlikely to change.
i guess you have never noticed when you are at ietf praha and your phone
says you are in seoul or whatever. it takes non-trivial ops pain to get
ietf attendees geoloc to work; and sometimes we can't.
when you find yourself in a hole, first
> I do not see any indication of wide-spread consistency.
the point is that there is widespread use. the page heas pointed out is
what is documented by large ops, the tip of the iceberg. how about stop
speaking for operators?
randy
___
OPSAWG
Thank you for that pointer. It is informative.
I looked at a number of the entries (trying to pick larger ISPs as more
likely to need more information.)
What i see is some ISPs doing what Randy Bush mentioned, marking
regions. I see a few ISPs that explicitly mark country (or in one case
Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 02:52:43PM +, li zhenqiang:
> Why do you think this is unusual and not common?
Possibly, with due respect, because he is not an operator? While ASes often
do so internally, not all reveal it externally or not ubiquitously. Browse
https://onestep.net/communities/ to
Dear Joel Halpern,
Thank you very much for your review. Please see my preliminary reply below.
For your first concern, the idea is when the routers obtain the information for
the already defined BGP related IEs, such as bgpSourceAsNumber,
bgpDestinationAsNumber, and bgpNextHopIPv4Address, etc,
hi joel,
> 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
13 matches
Mail list logo
