[Idr] Re: Request for comments on draft-li-idr-flowspec-sr-policy

[[e-mail]]

Hi Zhenqiang, 
After reading this draft, I have some questions and comments: 
1. In section 2.1, it would be better to add a reference to the color extended community in RFC9256 in the description of policy color;
2. Under what circumstances is it necessary to use the redirection to SRv6 policy when the endpoint is IPv4?
3. When the sr-policy in section 2.1 and the srv6 sid in section 2.2 are used together, is it necessary to always use the SRv6 SID as the last segment?
4. Can this draft be used with the match operation defined in draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-srv6? If so, what is the operation on the message when the match condition is matched? If the original message has a segment list, should the original segment list be removed and a new segment list be used?
Thank you for your consideration!
Best regards,
Sandy



Original


From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>;
Cc: draft-li-idr-flowspec-sr-policy <[e-mail]>;
Date: 2025年06月03日 12:10
Subject: [Idr] Request for comments on draft-li-idr-flowspec-sr-policy

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list -- [e-mail]
To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
 Hello all,

A new draft, https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-idr-flowspec-sr-policy/, was submitted in March, which difines two new standard actions for the BGP Flowspec version 2 protocol: Redirect to SR Policy Action and SRv6 SID Action. The former allows traffic to be directed to a designated SR Policy, while the latter enables the encapsulation of an additional SRv6 SID as needed during redirection. 

Comments are appreciated!

Thanks and Regards,
Zhenqiang Li
China Mobile

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[e-mail]