Export of BGP Community Information in IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)
draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-12

[Ballot comment]
Please expand IPFIX in the abstract.

§2: Is there a reason not to use the new boilerplate from RFC 8174?

§8:
- "does not directly introduce any new security issues"
What does "directly" mean in context? Should we be concerned about indirectly introduced issues?

-2nd paragraph: I am skeptical of a claim that, because private information might be available from other vectors, a mechanism has not introduced new privacy issues. Is there no possibility that someone who had not deduced privacy-sensitive information by the other means could now get it via this mechanism?

[Ballot comment]
Section 7:

"BGP speakers that support the extended message SHOULD be careful to
  export the BGP communities in the IPFIX message properly, so that
  they only convey as many communities as possible in the IPFIX
  message.  The Collector which receives an IPFIX message with maximum
  length and BGP communities contained in its data set SHOULD be aware
  that the BGP communities may be truncated due to limited message
  space."

This uses normative language improperly. "SHOULD be careful" and "SHOULD be aware" are not actionable by implementations. It seems like in the first case this is trying to convey something more like "SHOULD only convey as many communities as possible without exceeding the 65536-byte limit of an IPFIX message." The second one seems like it should not be a normative recommendation.

Section 8:

"This document itself does not directly introduce any new security issues."

I question whether this is true. The motivation for the document describes the use of BGP communities in IPFIX as inputs to, e.g., traffic optimization applications. Given that there are known problems associated with the integrity and authenticity of BGP communities (e.g., [1]), couldn't the propagation of false BGP communities to these other applications cause the applications to misbehave in ways above and beyond whatever damage the false communities do to the operation of BGP itself?

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/103/materials/slides-103-grow-bgp-communities-spread-their-wings-01

[Ballot comment]
Hello,

thank you for this document. I only have a couple of minor comments:

  without needing to run the heavy BGP itself.
I'm not sure about the need to qualify BGP as "heavy".

  To understand the traffic generated by different
  kinds of customers, from different geographical or topological
  regions, by different kinds of customers in different regions,
It looks to me that "by different kinds of customers in different regions," is redundant here.

  [RFC1997] defines the BGP Communities attribute, called BGP Standard
  Community in this document, which describes a group of routes sharing
  some common properties.  BGP Standard Community is treated as 32 bit
  value as stated in [RFC1997].
I don't understand the rationale for giving a special name ("standard") to this attribute. On top of that it could give the impression that the other attributes are not standard.

[Ballot comment]
One comment on section 1:
"For example, they can shift some flows
  from congested links to low utilized links through an SDN controller
  or PCE [RFC4655]."
I'm not aware that ipfix information is commonly used for dynamic traffic adaptation and I'm not sure that is recommendable. Can you maybe choose a different example. E.g use of IPFIX for troubleshooting or more generally network monitoring? Thanks!

[Ballot comment]
One comment on section 1:
"For example, they can shift some flows
  from congested links to low utilized links through an SDN controller
  or PCE [RFC4655]."
I'm not aware that ipfix information is commonly used for dynamic traffic adaptation and I'm not sure that is recommenable. Can you maybe choose a different example. E.g use of IPFIX for troubleshooting or more generally network monitoring? Thanks!

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-07. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator has a question about one of the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete.

In the IPFIX Information Elements registry on the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Entities registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/

nine, new Information Elements are to be registered as follows:

ElementID: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Name: bgpCommunity
Abstract Data Type: unsigned32
Data Type Semantics: identifier
Status:
Description: BGP community as defined in [RFC1997]
Units:
Range:
References: RFC1997
Requester: [ RFC-to-be ]
Revision: 0
Date: [ TBD-at-Registration ]

ElementID: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Name: bgpSourceCommunityList
Abstract Data Type: basicList
Data Type Semantics: list
Status:
Description: zero or more BGP communities corresponding with source IP address of a specific flow
Units:
Range:
References: RFC6313,RFC1997
Requester: [ RFC-to-be ]
Revision: 0
Date: [ TBD-at-Registration ]

ElementID: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Name: bgpDestinationCommunityList
Abstract Data Type: basicList
Data Type Semantics: list
Status:
Description: zero or more BGP communities corresponding with destination IP address of a specific flow
Units:
Range:
References: RFC6313,RFC1997
Requester: [ RFC-to-be ]
Revision: 0
Date: [ TBD-at-Registration ]

ElementID: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Name: bgpExtendedCommunity
Abstract Data Type: octetArray
Data Type Semantics: default
Status:
Description: BGP Extended Community as defined in [RFC4360] The size of this IE MUST be 8 octets
Units:
Range:
References: RFC4360
Requester: [ RFC-to-be ]
Revision: 0
Date: [ TBD-at-Registration ]

ElementID: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Name: bgpSourceExtendedCommunityList
Abstract Data Type: basicList
Data Type Semantics: list
Status:
Description: zero or more BGP Extended Communities corresponding with source IP address of a specific flow
Units:
Range:
References: RFC6313,RFC4360
Requester: [ RFC-to-be ]
Revision: 0
Date: [ TBD-at-Registration ]

ElementID: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Name: bgpDestinationExtendedCommunityList
Abstract Data Type: basicList
Data Type Semantics: list
Status:
Description: zero or more BGP Extended Communities corresponding with destination IP address of a specific flow
Units:
Range:
References: RFC6313,RFC4360
Requester: [ RFC-to-be ]
Revision: 0
Date: [ TBD-at-Registration ]

ElementID: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Name: bgpLargeCommunity
Abstract Data Type: octetArray
Data Type Semantics: default
Status:
Description: BGP Large Community as defined in [RFC8092] The size of this IE MUST be 12 octets.
Units:
Range:
References: RFC8092
Requester: [ RFC-to-be ]
Revision: 0
Date: [ TBD-at-Registration ]

ElementID: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Name: bgpSourceLargeCommunityList
Abstract Data Type: basicList
Data Type Semantics: list
Status:
Description: zero or more BGP Large Communities corresponding with source IP address of a specific flow
Units:
Range:
References: RFC6313,RFC8092
Requester: [ RFC-to-be ]
Revision: 0
Date: [ TBD-at-Registration ]

ElementID: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Name: bgpDestinationLargeCommunityList
Abstract Data Type: basicList
Data Type Semantics: list
Status:
Description: zero or more BGP Large Communities corresponding with destination IP address of a specific flow
Units:
Range:
References: RFC6313,RFC8092
Requester: [ RFC-to-be ]
Revision: 0
Date: [ TBD-at-Registration ]

IANA Question: What is the value of the "Status" field for each of these nine registrations?

As this document requests registrations in an Expert Review (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. Expert review will need to be completed before your document can be approved for publication as an RFC.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Senior IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-09-24):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: ibagdona@gmail.com, opsawg-chairs@ietf.org, Tianran Zhou , draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community@ietf.org, opsawg@ietf.org, zhoutianran@huawei.com
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Export BGP community information in IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Operations and Management Area
Working Group WG (opsawg) to consider the following document: - 'Export BGP
community information in IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2018-09-24. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of
the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  By introducing new Information Elements (IEs), this draft extends the
  existing BGP related IEs to enable IPFIX [RFC7011] to export the BGP
  community information, including the information of BGP standard
  community [RFC1997], BGP extended community [RFC4360], and BGP large
  community [RFC8092].  Network traffic information can then be
  accumulated and analysed at the BGP community granularity, which
  represents the traffic of different kinds of customers, services, or
  geographical regions according to the network operator's BGP
  community planning.  Network traffic information at the BGP community
  granularity is useful for network traffic analysis and engineering.

  To clarify, no new BGP community attribute is defined in this
  document and this document has no purpose to replace BGP Monitoring
  Protocol (BMP) defined in RFC7854.  The IEs introduced in this
  document are used by IPFIX together with other IEs to facilitate the
  IPFIX collector analyzing the network traffic at the BGP community
  granularity without running the heavy BGP protocol.  When needed, the
  mediator or collector can use the IEs introduced in this document to
  report the BGP community related traffic flow information it gets
  either from exporters or through local correlation to other IPFIX
  devices.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community/ballot/

The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2964/
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3165/

>As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
>Shepherd Write-Up.
>
>Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.
>
>(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
>Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? 

Proposed Standard.

>Why is this the proper type of RFC? 

It defines new Information Elements for IPFIX to carry various BGP communities.

>Is this type of RFC indicated in the
>title page header?

Yes.   

>(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
>Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
>examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
>documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:
>
>Technical Summary
>
>  Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
>  and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
>  an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
>  or introduction.

By introducing new Information Elements (IEs), this draft extends the existing BGP related IEs to enable IPFIX [RFC7011] to export the BGP community information, including the information of BGP standard community [RFC1997], BGP extended community [RFC4360], and BGP large community [RFC8092].  Network traffic information can then be accumulated and analysed at the BGP community granularity, which represents the traffic of different kinds of customers, services, or geographical regions according to the network operator's BGP community planning.  Network traffic information at the BGP community granularity is useful for network traffic analysis and engineering.
 
>Working Group Summary
>
>  Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
>  example, was there controversy about particular points or
>  were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
>  rough?

There was some discussion about the use cases of BGP community and collection of BGP community based traffic statistics. According to feedbacks on the mailing list, it seems the consensus is the use cases are valid and the IEs defined in this draft useful.

>Document Quality
>
>  Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
>  significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
>  implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
>  merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
>  e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
>  conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
>  there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
>  what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
>  review, on what date was the request posted?

So far there is no implementation of this document. Some vendors may have plan to implement this.
Gen-Art review on -04 version:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/5BKGzbqdp6XUaJGNkWfJaVFmlR4
Gen-Art re-review and a RTG-DIR review on -06 version:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/uNwykciJuo0Y-Fpmxv6eFea0wWE
After the above review, there was discussion about the use cases and applicability of the draft and consensus are reached. The updated version -07 reflected the changes agreed.
This document received discussions and comments from IPFIX, GROW and IDR WG.
 
>Personnel
>
>  Who is the Document Shepherd?

Tianran Zhou
>
>  Who is the Responsible Area
>  Director?

Ignas Bagdonas will normally serve as Responsible AD.

>(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
>the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
>for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
>the IESG.

The document shepherd think the current version (-07) is ready for publication.

>(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
>breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No

>(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
>broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
>DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
>took place.

Nothing beyond the normal checks.

>(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
>has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
>IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
>with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
>is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
>has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
>concerns here.

None.

>(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
>disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
>and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

Yes.
Zhenqiang Li: has IPR
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/kTQA2busaeKeSrGpua0g3iD4JJw
Rong Gu: no IPR
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/5olW4HFOgpUh1EMZCMPmaHUTuB8
Jie Dong: no IPR
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/Wu8yaAtAWTiBZQHs8RYC795Iu84


>(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
>If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
>disclosures.

Yes, there is one IPR disclosure references this document.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3165/
There are discussions about the IPR disclosure. Someone thought the IPR was disclosed late (shortly after the WG adoption). Someone thought the IPR should be withdrawn. Then according to the AD’s suggestion, the chairs initiated one additional consensus call on this document. In the mailing list, there was no objection of proceeding this draft with the disclosed IPR. 


>(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
>represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
>being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? 

Solid consensus according to the review and discussion in the list.

>(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
>discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
>email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
>separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

>(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
>document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
>Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
>thorough.

There are some ID nits exist.
https://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-07.txt


>(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
>criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A.

>(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
>either normative or informative?

Yes.

>(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
>advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
>references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No. All normative references are RFCs.

>(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
>If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
>the Last Call procedure.

No.

>(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
>existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
>in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
>listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
>part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
>other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
>explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No, it will not change the status of existing RFCs.

>(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
>section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
>document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
>are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
>Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
>identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
>detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
>allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
>reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

IANA is requested to assign the following new Element IDs:
ElementID        Name
TBA1 bgpCommunity
TBA2 bgpSourceCommunityList 
TBA3  bgpDestinationCommunityList
TBA4  bgpExtendedCommunity 
TBA5  bgpSourceExtendedCommunityList
TBA6  bgpDestinationExtendedCommunityList
TBA7  bgpLargeCommunity   
TBA8  bgpSourceLargeCommunityList
TBA9  bgpDestinationLargeCommunityList

This document was sent to IPFIX mailing list.
There were experts performed for the expert review for IPFIX IE registry.

>(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
>allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
>useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

No new registries.

>(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
>Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
>language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

N/A.