Re: [Idr] [ALU] will draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip-02 be revived?

[Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]>]

Matter of fact, there's an old mail chain in your inbox from me about trying to finish it off for RFC. :-)

I believe our assessment at the time was roughly:
- None of our implementations was implementing the 'copy' bit.
- Our implementations weren't quite in accord with the redirect to ip when also doing redirect to vrf.

I think it's mostly a matter of dusting of that thread and doing our implementation reports with all of the implementors and then adjusting for reality.

-- Jeff


> On Jun 29, 2021, at 2:48 PM, Simpson, Adam 1. (Nokia - US/Mountain View) <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Linda,
>  
> I don’t think there is any great reason why we didn’t continue to refresh this draft and take it to RFC. At the time of the last update there was a lot of churn in the flowspec area with respect to work on the bis draft, flowpsec-v2 and the best way to specify interaction between multiple actions. So I guess you could say that we wanted the dust to settle a bit.
>  
> This draft can and should be revived. It would be good to understand from my co-authors the current status of implementations. I can say that Nokia has implemented this draft for both IPv4 and IPv6, but only the redirect functionality, not the copy functionality.
>  
> -Adam 
>  
> From: Linda Dunbar <[e-mail]>
> Date: Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 10:29 AM
> To: UTTARO, JAMES <[e-mail]>, Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, Simpson, Adam 1. (Nokia - US/Mountain View) <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> Subject: [ALU] will draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip-02 be revived? 
> 
> Jim, Jeff, et al, 
>  
> Our https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mcd-rtgwg-extension-tn-aware-mobility/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mcd-rtgwg-extension-tn-aware-mobility/> needs to use Flowspec to influence the node (either on 5G UPF or directly connected to the 5GUPF) to steer a flow from 5G’s UPF to a specific underlay path based on the  5G services characteristics. 
>  
> The approach described in  draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip-02 are useful for our purpose.   But the draft has been expired.
>  
> Just curious if the  draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip-02 be revived? Were there any reasons the draft didn’t move forward?
>  
> Thank you very much 
> Linda Dunbar