Subject: [Idr] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5575 (5043)

From: RFC Errata System <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 06:31:15 -0700 (PDT)

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5575,
"Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5043

--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: Jan Matejka <[email-masked]>

Section: 7

Original Text
-------------
        +--------+--------------------+--------------------------+
        | type   | extended community | encoding                 |
        +--------+--------------------+--------------------------+
        | 0x8006 | traffic-rate       | 2-byte as#, 4-byte float |
        | 0x8007 | traffic-action     | bitmask                  |
        | 0x8008 | redirect           | 6-byte Route Target      |
        | 0x8009 | traffic-marking    | DSCP value               |
        +--------+--------------------+--------------------------+

   Traffic-rate:  The traffic-rate extended community is a non-
      transitive extended community across the autonomous-system
      boundary and uses following extended community encoding:

Corrected Text
--------------
        +--------+--------------------+--------------------------+
        | type   | extended community | encoding                 |
        +--------+--------------------+--------------------------+
        | 0xc006 | traffic-rate       | 2-byte as#, 4-byte float |
        | 0x8007 | traffic-action     | bitmask                  |
        | 0x8008 | redirect           | 6-byte Route Target      |
        | 0x8009 | traffic-marking    | DSCP value               |
        +--------+--------------------+--------------------------+

   Traffic-rate:  The traffic-rate extended community is a non-
      transitive extended community across the autonomous-system
      boundary and uses following extended community encoding:

OR:

        +--------+--------------------+--------------------------+
        | type   | extended community | encoding                 |
        +--------+--------------------+--------------------------+
        | 0x8006 | traffic-rate       | 2-byte as#, 4-byte float |
        | 0x8007 | traffic-action     | bitmask                  |
        | 0x8008 | redirect           | 6-byte Route Target      |
        | 0x8009 | traffic-marking    | DSCP value               |
        +--------+--------------------+--------------------------+

   Traffic-rate:  The traffic-rate extended community
      uses following extended community encoding:

Notes
-----
The traffic rate type is allocated in the Transitive Experimental Range (https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-extended-communities/bgp-extended-communities.xhtml#bgp-extended-communities-10) but the text declares it non-transitive.

Instructions:
-------------
This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party  
can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. 

--------------------------------------
RFC5575 (draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-09)
--------------------------------------
Title               : Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules
Publication Date    : August 2009
Author(s)           : P. Marques, N. Sheth, R. Raszuk, B. Greene, J. Mauch, D. McPherson
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : Inter-Domain Routing
Area                : Routing
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG

---

From: Christoph Loibl <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 17:13:21 +0200

Hi jan,

This issue (traffic-rate action defined as *non-transitive*) is actually already taken care of in our in-progress draft (draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis).

As described below _all_ traffic actions have been assigned by IANA as transitive. Our lab-tests showed that all the actions are treated as transitive by the implementations that we tested (Juniper, Cisco, Huawei, Nokia/Alcatel, ExaBGP). This perfectly makes sense. So we added the following to the draft:

All traffic actions are specified as transitive BGP Extended
   Communities.
(see last sentence of section 7 in draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-01) IANA consideration section will reflect this as well (not yet done).

Cheers

Christoph

--
Christoph Loibl
[email-masked] | CL8-RIPE | PGP-Key-ID: 0x4B2C0055 | http://www.nextlayer.at

> On 20 Jun 2017, at 15:31, RFC Errata System <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr