Internet DRAFT - draft-raszuk-idr-flow-spec-impl
draft-raszuk-idr-flow-spec-impl
Network Working Group R. Raszuk
Internet-Draft P. Marques
Intended status: Experimental Juniper Networks Inc.
Expires: December 23, 2008 C. Labovitz
Arbor Networks
June 21, 2008
Dissemination of flow specification rules implementation report
draft-raszuk-idr-flow-spec-impl-00
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 23, 2008.
Abstract
This document provides an implementation report for Dissemination of
flow specification rules as defined in draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-01
The editor did not verify the accuracy of the information provided by
respondents or by any alternative means. The respondents are experts
with the implementations they reported on, and their responses are
considered authoritative for the implementations for which their
responses represent.
Raszuk, et al. Expires December 23, 2008 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft draft-raszuk-idr-flow-spec-impl-00.txt June 2008
Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Implementation Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Dissemination of Information Compliance . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Traffic filtering compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3. Validation procedure compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.4. Traffic Filtering Actions compliance . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.5. Monitoring compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.6. Interoperable Implementations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 10
Raszuk, et al. Expires December 23, 2008 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft draft-raszuk-idr-flow-spec-impl-00.txt June 2008
1. Introduction
Dissemination of flow specification rules BGP describes an extension
to BGP which may be used to propagate information describing flows of
data between BGP speakers. Such information may be needed to apply
action on selected data flows through and beyond autonoumus systems.
Examples of such actions are: dropping, rate limiting, redirecting,
monitoring etc ...
This document provides an implementation report for Dissemination of
flow specification rules as defined in draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-01
The editor did not verify the accuracy of the information provided by
respondents or by any alternative means. The respondents are experts
with the implementations they reported on, and their responses are
considered authoritative for the implementations for which their
responses represent.
2. Implementation Forms
Contact and implementation information for person filling out this
form:
Name: Craig Labovitz, Email: labovit@arbor.net , Vendor: Arbor
Networks, Inc. Release: Peakflow SP
Name: Pedro Marques, Email: roque@juniper.net, Vendor: Juniper
Networks Inc., Release: JUNOS 7.3
2.1. Dissemination of Information Compliance
Does your implementation supports 0 octet length Next Hop in the
MP_REACH_NLRI as defined in Flow-Spec [I-D.ietf-idr-flow-spec]?
Arbor: YES
Juniper: YES
Does your implementation supports one and two octet of NLRI length
field in the MP_REACH_NLRI as defined in Flow-Spec
[I-D.ietf-idr-flow-spec]?
Arbor: YES
Juniper: YES
Does your Flow Specification supports Destination Prefix component
Raszuk, et al. Expires December 23, 2008 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft draft-raszuk-idr-flow-spec-impl-00.txt June 2008
(Type 1) as defined in Flow-Spec [I-D.ietf-idr-flow-spec]?
Arbor: YES
Juniper: YES
Does your Flow Specification supports Source Prefix component (Type
2) as defined in Flow-Spec [I-D.ietf-idr-flow-spec]?
Arbor: YES
Juniper: YES
Does your Flow Specification supports IP Protocol component (Type 3)
as defined in Flow-Spec [I-D.ietf-idr-flow-spec]?
Arbor: YES
Juniper: YES
Does your Flow Specification supports Port component (Type 4) as
defined in Flow-Spec [I-D.ietf-idr-flow-spec]?
Arbor: YES
Juniper: YES
Does your Flow Specification supports Destination Port component
(Type 5) as defined in Flow-Spec [I-D.ietf-idr-flow-spec]?
Arbor: YES
Juniper: YES
Does your Flow Specification supports Source Port component (Type 6)
as defined in Flow-Spec [I-D.ietf-idr-flow-spec]?
Arbor: YES
Juniper: YES
Does your Flow Specification supports ICMP type component (Type 7) as
defined in Flow-Spec [I-D.ietf-idr-flow-spec]?
Arbor: YES
Juniper: YES
Raszuk, et al. Expires December 23, 2008 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft draft-raszuk-idr-flow-spec-impl-00.txt June 2008
Does your Flow Specification supports ICMP code component (Type 8) as
defined in Flow-Spec [I-D.ietf-idr-flow-spec]?
Arbor: YES
Juniper: YES
Does your Flow Specification supports TCP flags component (Type 9) as
defined in Flow-Spec [I-D.ietf-idr-flow-spec]?
Arbor: YES
Juniper: YES
Does your Flow Specification supports Packet length component (Type
10) as defined in Flow-Spec [I-D.ietf-idr-flow-spec]?
Arbor: YES
Juniper: YES
Does your Flow Specification supports DSCP component (Type 11) as
defined in Flow-Spec [I-D.ietf-idr-flow-spec]?
Arbor: YES
Juniper: YES
Does your Flow Specification supports Fragment component (Type 12) as
defined in Flow-Spec [I-D.ietf-idr-flow-spec]?
Arbor: YES
Juniper: YES
Does your implementation assures strict type ordering of propagated
components as defined in Flow-Spec [I-D.ietf-idr-flow-spec]?
Arbor: YES
Juniper: YES
Does your implementation supports BGP's Capability Advertisement
facility to exchange the Multiprotocol Extension Capability Codeas
defined in Flow-Spec [I-D.ietf-idr-flow-spec]?
Arbor: YES
Raszuk, et al. Expires December 23, 2008 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft draft-raszuk-idr-flow-spec-impl-00.txt June 2008
Juniper: YES
Does your implementation supports dissemination of flow specification
rules for IPv4 Unicast as defined in Flow-Spec
[I-D.ietf-idr-flow-spec]?
Arbor: YES, but not completely applicable (we are not a router)
Juniper: YES
Does your implementation supports dissemination of flow specification
rules for VPNv4 Unicast as defined in Flow-Spec
[I-D.ietf-idr-flow-spec]?
Arbor: YES
Juniper: YES
2.2. Traffic filtering compliance
Does your implementation supports ordered traffic filtering rules
such that the order of two flow specifications is given by the
comparison of NLRI key byte strings as defined by the memcmp()
function is the ISO C standard ?
Arbor: YES, but not completely applicable
Juniper: YES
2.3. Validation procedure compliance
Does your implementation supports flow routes validation per
originator match with corresponding unicast route as defined in Flow-
Spec [I-D.ietf-idr-flow-spec]?
Arbor: N/A (we are not a router)
Juniper: YES
Does your implementation supports flow routes validation to make sure
that there are no more specifics flow routes received from a
different neighboring AS than the best-match unicast route as defined
in Flow-Spec [I-D.ietf-idr-flow-spec]?
Arbor: N/A
Juniper: YES
Raszuk, et al. Expires December 23, 2008 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft draft-raszuk-idr-flow-spec-impl-00.txt June 2008
2.4. Traffic Filtering Actions compliance
Does your implementation supports traffic-rate extended community
filtering action as defined in Flow-Spec [I-D.ietf-idr-flow-spec]?
Arbor: YES
Juniper: YES
Does your implementation supports traffic-action extended community
filtering action as defined in Flow-Spec [I-D.ietf-idr-flow-spec]?
Arbor: YES
Juniper: YES
Does your implementation supports redirect extended community
filtering action as defined in Flow-Spec [I-D.ietf-idr-flow-spec]?
Arbor: NO (but upcoming version will)
Juniper: YES
2.5. Monitoring compliance
Does your implementation supports a mechanism to log the packet
header of filtered traffic as defined in Flow-Spec
[I-D.ietf-idr-flow-spec]?
Arbor: N/A
Juniper: YES
Does your implementation supports a mechanism to count the number of
matches for a given Flow Specification rule as defined in Flow-Spec
[I-D.ietf-idr-flow-spec]?
Arbor: N/A
Juniper: YES
2.6. Interoperable Implementations
List other implementations that you have tested interoperability of
Dissemination of flow specification rules Flow-Spec
[I-D.ietf-idr-flow-spec] with:
Arbor: Juniper
Raszuk, et al. Expires December 23, 2008 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft draft-raszuk-idr-flow-spec-impl-00.txt June 2008
Juniper: Arbor
3. IANA Considerations
This document makes no request of IANA.
Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an
RFC.
4. Security Considerations
Does your implementation supports flow routes rules to match the
corresponding unicast routing paths for the relevant prefixes as
defined in Flow-Spec [I-D.ietf-idr-flow-spec]?
Arbor: N/A
Juniper: YES
5. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Yakov Rekhter and Danny McPherson for
their comments.
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4223] Savola, P., "Reclassification of RFC 1863 to Historic",
RFC 4223, October 2005.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway
Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006.
6.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-idr-flow-spec]
Marques, P., Sheth, N., Raszuk, R., Greene, B., and D.
McPherson, "Dissemination of flow specification rules",
draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-01 (work in progress),
April 2008.
Raszuk, et al. Expires December 23, 2008 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft draft-raszuk-idr-flow-spec-impl-00.txt June 2008
Authors' Addresses
Robert Raszuk
Juniper Networks Inc.
1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA
US
Phone:
Fax:
Email: raszuk@juniper.net
URI:
Pedro Roque Marques
Juniper Networks Inc.
1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA
US
Phone:
Fax:
Email: roque@juniper.net
URI:
Craig Labovitz
Arbor Networks
Phone:
Fax:
Email: labovit@arbor.net
URI:
Raszuk, et al. Expires December 23, 2008 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft draft-raszuk-idr-flow-spec-impl-00.txt June 2008
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Raszuk, et al. Expires December 23, 2008 [Page 10]
