Re: [Idr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-yong-idr-flowspec-mpls-match-00.txt

[Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]>]

Authors,

On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 07:44:57AM -0400, Susan Hares wrote:
> We welcome comments on this BGP flow specification match based on MPLS. 

[Note that I'm intentionally avoiding the "which rev of flowspec does this
go in" discussion.]

For your operator actions:
'e' needs clarification when there is more than one of these set.
'a' is ambiguous when both 'e' and 'a' are set.
'i' may be problematic to implement on some vendors and thus may lead to
interoperability issues.  This is due to many vendors implementing their
firewalling as a ingress-only operation.

pos - is this intended to match the magic reserved labels or do you mean
this is reserved for future use?

I think one of the cases I would have hoped to see is basically an indexed
operation.  For example, for purposes of matching specific target tunnel
endpoints, matching the second from top label (which might *not* be the
bottom label) is sometimes interesting, especially for LDP over RSVP.
Similarly, it helps spring applications.

It seems a little unusual that you've chosen to separate the fate of
matching ToS bits from the label itself and are only examining the top
label's bits.  Any particular reason?

-- Jeff