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

Susan Hares <> Tue, 29 June 2021 19:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B44E3A3E68 for <>; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 12:30:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.447
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.447 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.398, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DhghswbGjnlG for <>; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 12:30:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 72DFE3A0783 for <>; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 12:30:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=;
From: "Susan Hares" <>
To: "'Linda Dunbar'" <>, "'Simpson, Adam 1. \(Nokia - US/Mountain View\)'" <>, "'UTTARO, JAMES'" <>, "'Jeffrey Haas'" <>, <>, <>, <>, <>
Cc: <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2021 15:30:11 -0400
Message-ID: <014001d76d1d$2dfc5630$89f50290$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0141_01D76CFB.A6ED2730"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQFl5Cb0wj+wPQMyJanHSQ1PvinuLgLJ6U4qAa3oFByr6rJYwA==
Content-Language: en-us
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] [ALU] will draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip-02 be revived?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2021 19:30:35 -0000

Linda and Adam: 


The understanding of the IDR chairs from IDR members at the
flow-specification interim is that all new IDR flow specification drafts
will need to be done in flow specification v2.  


The flow specification v2 work will be expedited during the next IDR cycle.
Our anticipation is to select an single Editor and let the WG rapidly
suggest additions. 




From: Idr [] On Behalf Of Linda Dunbar
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2021 3:01 PM
To: Simpson, Adam 1. (Nokia - US/Mountain View); UTTARO, JAMES; Jeffrey
Subject: Re: [Idr] [ALU] will draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip-02 be




Great to hear the draft will be refreshed. Then we can reference the
approach for our TN-AWARE flowspec. 


Thank you



From: Simpson, Adam 1. (Nokia - US/Mountain View) <>

Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2021 1:49 PM
To: Linda Dunbar <>om>; UTTARO, JAMES
<>om>; Jeffrey Haas <>rg>;;;;
Subject: Re: [ALU] will draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip-02 be revived? 


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.




From: Linda Dunbar <>
Date: Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 10:29 AM
To: UTTARO, JAMES <>om>, Jeffrey Haas <>rg>, <>om>, <>om>, <>om>, Simpson, Adam
1. (Nokia - US/Mountain View) <>om>,
Cc: <>
Subject: [ALU] will draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip-02 be revived? 

Jim, Jeff, et al, 


000&sdata=PUDjhqA3Mqgd2krioVNCB1xXVDRbrgLOQ21EygjKvVI%3D&reserved=0>  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