Gunter,
No one in BGP land will question that decoupling and indirection is a good
thing.
But why do you need new PATH_ID rather then just using community as a
marker ? Be it regular, extended or wide ?
Cheers,
R.
On Oct 27, 2015 10:01 AM, "VAN DE VELDE, Gunter (Gunter)" <
gunter.van_de_ve...@al
My question was specifically why *new* one is needed to just work as a
marker ?
R.
On Oct 27, 2015 10:44 AM, "VAN DE VELDE, Gunter (Gunter)" <
gunter.van_de_ve...@alcatel-lucent.com> wrote:
> It ‘is' a community… just one used to indicate a
> redirection/traffic-steering service…
>
> G/
>
> From:
When configuring a PBR on a router using CLI you identify the ‘interesting’
traffic and the ‘actions’ upon the interesting traffic.
PBR does not do anything for tunnel-setup or signaling… I do not think that
Flowspec should be involved at all with set-up or
tunnel initiation as there are much b
Suggested in the draft:
The ‘C’ bit to copy the original traffic onto the redirect path.
There is a ‘TID’ field to allow nested or sequenced redirection service
To be discussed:
Type field: indication of additional Path_ID context if desired (I.e. Type1:
redirect-to-IP; Type2: redirect-to-PATH_ID
It ‘is' a community… just one used to indicate a redirection/traffic-steering
service…
G/
From: mailto:rras...@gmail.com>> on behalf of Robert Raszuk
mailto:rob...@raszuk.net>>
Date: Tuesday 27 October 2015 at 10:37
To: Gunter Van de Velde
mailto:gunter.van_de_ve...@alcatel-lucent.com>>
Cc: "r
Hi Gunter,
Understood your design method is to just specify PATH_ID in flowspec message,
and let the routers do local recursive action to select a set of specific
tunnel(s), the tunnel and PATH_ID association should be configured beforehand
at each router. The BGP flowspec initiator doesn't nee
