Re: [Idr] 2 week WG LC on changes to draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-rt-bis-04.txt (4/20 to 5/4/2015) - extended to 5/18/2015

[Shishio Tsuchiya <[e-mail]>]

Jeff
(2015/05/06 23:06), Jeffrey Haas wrote:
> Shishio,
> 
> On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 06:43:30PM +0900, Shishio Tsuchiya wrote:
>> I support this draft, and  type 0x8008(redirect AS-2byte) and 0x8208(redirect AS-4byte).
>>
>> But I can't support type 0x8108 (redirect IPv4) to reduce confusion.
>> I think the type should be included in "BGP Flow-Spec Redirect to IP Action".
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip-02
> 
> Unlike the redirect-to-ip feature, this is a long deployed feature to
> redirect routes to VRFs containing the mentioned route-target.  IPv4 is a
> valid global administrator field in route-targets.

Thanks, I understood.
To support RFC4360 route-targets parameter, this type also is needed in  draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-rt.


> 
> If your implementation is unable to support such route-targets, it's fine to
> not implement it.  However, this is not redirecting based on IP nexthop or
> tunnel.

My comment is not mention about our implementation.
I just thought if this type 0x8108 is same function as 'Flow-spec Redirect to IPv4' of "BGP Flow-Spec Redirect to IP Action" then it would be complex for operators.

But it was my misunderstanding.


Support publication.

Regards,
-Shishio


> 
> -- Jeff
> .
>