Skip to main content

Early Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-06
review-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-06-rtgdir-early-halpern-2018-04-13-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-04
Requested revision 04 (document currently at 12)
Type Early Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2018-04-27
Requested 2018-02-05
Requested by Tianran Zhou
Authors Zhenqiang Li , Rong Gu , Jie Dong
I-D last updated 2018-04-13
Completed reviews Opsdir Telechat review of -10 by Al Morton (diff)
Genart Early review of -04 by Joel M. Halpern (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -06 by Joel M. Halpern (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -07 by Shawn M Emery (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -07 by Joel M. Halpern (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -08 by Al Morton (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -11 by Joel M. Halpern (diff)
Comments
This document is in working group LC. Not many review comments received. So we would like to request review from related DIRs to help the quality of the draft. Thank you.
Assignment Reviewer Joel M. Halpern
State Completed
Request Early review on draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community by Routing Area Directorate Assigned
Reviewed revision 06 (document currently at 12)
Result Not ready
Completed 2018-04-13
review-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-06-rtgdir-early-halpern-2018-04-13-00
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 has
to move additional information from BGP to the common structures.

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 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.