Subject: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-11.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 23:38:31 -0800

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Inter-Domain Routing WG of the IETF.

        Title           : Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules
        Authors         : Susan Hares
                          Christoph Loibl
                          Robert Raszuk
                          Danny McPherson
                          Martin Bacher
	Filename        : draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-11.txt
	Pages           : 34
	Date            : 2019-01-16

Abstract:
   This document 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.

   It specifies IPv4 traffic Flow Specifications via a BGP NLRI which
   carries traffic Flow Specification filter, and an Extended community
   value which encodes actions a routing system can take if the packet
   matches the traffic flow filters.  The flow filters and the actions
   are processed in a fixed order.  Other drafts specify IPv6, MPLS
   addresses, L2VPN addresses, and NV03 encapsulation of IP addresses.

   This document obsoletes RFC5575 and RFC7674 to correct unclear
   specifications in the flow filters and to provide rules for actions
   which interfere (e.g. redirection of traffic and flow filtering).

   Applications which use the bgp Flow Specification are: 1) application
   which automate inter-domain coordination of traffic filtering, such
   as what is required in order to mitigate (distributed) denial-of-
   service attacks; 2) applications which control traffic filtering in
   the context of a BGP/MPLS VPN service, and 3) applications with
   centralized control of traffic in a SDN or NFV context.  Some
   deployments of these three applications can be handled by the strict
   ordering of the BGP NLRI traffic flow filters, and the strict actions
   encoded in the extended community Flow Specification actions.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-11
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-11

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-11

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.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: "Smith, Donald" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2019 20:06:18 +0000

I have an issue with how people describe BHFing and other similar techniques.

First the continued use of RTBH (no F?), isn't nearly all BHFing going to be RT?
Does it make any difference if it is done manually one router at a time vs via BGP (I think there is a minor difference but the effect is the same.)
So when I want to say Destination prefix based Black Hole Filtering, it becomes DBHF.

Here are some other filtering definitions and what I think are logical abbrevations. I should probably turn that/this into an informational RFC :)

BHF Black Hole Filter (no directionality)
DBHF Destination based BHF
SBHF Source based BHF
CIDBHF Customer Initiated DBHF
DSH Destination based Sink Hole
SSH Source based Sink Hole
DSHSBHF Destination based Sink Hole & SBHF
CIDSHSBHF Customer Initiated DSHSBHF

In almost no case would you actually do BHF with no directionality but for completeness I have it in there.

9.1

"Several techniques are currently used to control traffic filtering of
   DoS attacks.  Among those, one of the most common is to inject
   unicast route advertisements corresponding to a destination prefix
   being attacked (commonly known as remote triggered blackhole RTBH).
   One variant of this technique marks such route advertisements with a
   community that gets translated into a discard Next-Hop by the
   receiving router.  Other variants attract traffic to a particular
   node that serves as a deterministic drop point."

DBHF, and

if (initial_ttl!=255) then (rfc5082_compliant==0)
[email-masked]

________________________________________
From: Idr [[email-masked]] on behalf of [email-masked] [[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2019 12:38 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-11.txt

Abstract:

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
This communication is the property of CenturyLink and may contain confidential or privileged information. Unauthorized use of this communication is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the communication and any attachments.