<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" [
<!ENTITY RFC0791 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.0791.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC2119 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC4271 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4271.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC4360 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4360.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC4456 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4456.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC4760 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4760.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC5065 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5065.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC5701 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5701.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC6241 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6241.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC7153 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7153.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC7606 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7606.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC8040 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8040.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC8174 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8174.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC8205 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8205.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC8206 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8206.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC8300 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8300.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC8955 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8955.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC8956 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8956.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC9015 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9015.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC9117 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9117.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC9015 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9015.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC9184 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9184.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC9582 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9582.xml">
<!ENTITY I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-l2vpn SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-l2vpn.xml">
<!ENTITY I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-nvo3 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-nvo3.xml">
<!ENTITY I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-srv6 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-srv6.xml">
<!ENTITY I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-interfaceset SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-interfaceset.xml">
<!ENTITY I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip.xml">
<!ENTITY I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect.xml">
<!ENTITY I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-v2 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-v2.xml">
<!ENTITY I-D.hares-idr-bgp-community-attribute SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.hares-idr-bgp-community-attribute.xml">
]>
<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='rfc2629.xslt' ?>
<?rfc toc="yes" ?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes" ?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc compact="yes" ?>
<?rfc subcompact="no" ?>
<?rfc iprnotified="no" ?>
<?rfc strict="no" ?>
<?rfc consensus="yes" ?>
<rfc category="std" docName="draft-ietf-idr-fsv2-ip-basic-02"  ipr="trust200902">
  <front>
    <title abbrev="BGP FSv2 Basic IP">BGP Flow Specification Version 2 - for Basic IP </title>
    <author fullname="Susan Hares" initials="S" surname="Hares">
      <organization>Hickory Hill Consulting</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>7453 Hickory Hill</street>
          <city>Saline</city>
          <region>MI</region>
          <code>48176</code>
          <country>USA</country>
        </postal>
		<phone>+1-734-604-0332</phone>
        <email>shares@ndzh.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
	<author fullname="Donald Eastlake" initials="D" surname="Eastlake">
      <organization>Independent</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>         
		<street>2386 Panoramic Circle</street>
          <city>Apopka</city>
          <region>FL</region>
          <code>32703</code>
          <country>USA</country>
        </postal>
		<phone>+1-508-333-2270</phone>
        <email>d3e3e3@gmail.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
	 <author fullname="Jie Dong" initials="J" surname="Dong" >
      <organization> Huawei Technologies</organization>	
	    <address>
        <postal>         
		<street>No. 156 Beiqing Road</street>
          <city>Beijing</city>
          <region></region>
          <code></code>
          <country>China</country>
        </postal>
        <email>jie.dong@huawei.com</email>
      </address>
	 </author> 
	<author fullname="Chaitanya Yadlapalli" initials="C" surname="Yadlapalli">
      <organization>ATT</organization>	
	    <address>
        <postal>         
		<street></street>
          <city></city>
          <region></region>
          <code></code>
          <country>USA</country>
        </postal>
        <email>cy098d@att.com</email>
      </address>
	  </author>
     <author fullname="Sven Maduschke" initials="S" surname="Maduscke" >
      <organization> Verizon</organization>	
	    <address>
        <postal>         
		<street></street>
          <city></city>
          <region></region>
          <code></code>
          <country>DE</country>
        </postal>
        <email>sven.maduschke@de.verizon.com</email>
      </address>
	 </author> 
	 
    <date year="2024" />
    <area>Routing Area</area>
    <workgroup>IDR Working Group</workgroup>
    <keyword>RFC</keyword>
    <keyword>Request for Comments</keyword>
    <keyword>I-D</keyword>
    <keyword>Internet-Draft</keyword>
    <keyword>BGP FSv2 - IP Basic</keyword>
	<abstract>
	   <t>BGP flow specification version 1 (FSv1), defined in RFC 8955, RFC 8956, and 
	  RFC 9117 describes the distribution of traffic filter policy (traffic 
	  filters and actions) distributed via BGP. During the deployment of BGP FSv1 
	  a number of issues were detected, so version 2 of the BGP 
	  flow specification (FSv2) protocol addresses these features.  In order to 
	  provide a clear demarcation between FSv1 and FSv2, a different NLRI
		encapsulates FSv2.  
	   </t>
	    <t>The IDR WG requires two implementation.
		Implementers feedback on FSv2 was that FSv2 has a correct design, but
		that breaking FSv2 into a progression of documents would aid deployment of
        the draft (basic, adding more filters, and adding more actions). 		
		This document specifies the basic FSv2 NLRI with user ordering of 
		filters added to FSv1 IP Filters and FSv2 actions.
	   </t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
<middle>
<section anchor="intro" title="Introduction">
	 <t> Version 2 of BGP flow specification was original defined in 
	  <xref target="I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-v2"></xref> (BGP FSv2).  
	  </t>
	  <t>
      FSv2 is an update to BGP Flow specification version 1 (BGP FSv1).  
	  BGP FSv1 as defined in <xref target="RFC8955"></xref>, 
	   <xref target="RFC8956"></xref>, and 
	    <xref target="RFC9117"></xref> specified 2 SAFIs (133, 134) 
		to be used with IPv4 AFI (AFI = 1) and IPv6 AFI (AFI=2). 
	  </t>
	  <t>
	  The BGP FSv2 specification  was consider technically correct, but it contains more 
	  than the initial implementers desired.  Why?  The IDR WG requires two 
	  implementations of any specification.  The BGP FSv2 
	  draft will remain a WG draft, but the content will be split out into 
	  a series of drafts (basic, adding more IP filters, adding more IP actions, 
	  and individual functions for TTL, MPLS and SRv6).  
	  </t> 
	  <t>This draft (FSv2 Basic) provides the basic FSv2 framework specification 
	  for transmitting user-ordered IP filters in the FSV2 NLRI with Extended Ccommunity 
	  to specify actions. 
	  </t> 
	  <t>
	  This document specifies 2 new SAFIs (TBD1, TBD2) for FSv2 to be used with 5 AFIs   
	  (1, 2, 6, 25, and 31) to allow user-ordered lists of traffic match filters for user-ordered 
	  traffic match actions encoded in Communities (Wide or Extended). 
	  </t>
	  <t>
	  FSv1 and FSv2 use different AFI/SAFIs to send flow specification filters.  Since BGP  
	  route selection is performed per AFI/SAFI, this approach can be 
	  termed “ships in the night” based on AFI/SAFI. 
	  </t>
     <t>The remainder of section 1 provides background on why the FSv2 was necessary to fix problems with FSv1.  
	 Section 2 contains a Primer on FSv1 (section 2.1) and FSv2 (section 2.2). 
	 Section 3 contains the encoding rules for FSv2 and user-based encoding sent via BGP.  Section 4 describes how to 
	 validate and order FSv2 NLRI.  Sections 5-8 discusses scalability, optional security additions, security 
	 considerations, and IANA considerations. 
	 </t>	  
<section anchor="introFSv2" title="Why Flow Specification v2">
      <t> 
	  Modern IP routers have the capability to forward traffic and to classify, 
	  shape, rate limit, filter, or redirect packets based on administratively 
	  defined policies. These traffic policy mechanisms allow the operator 
	  to define match rules that operate on multiple fields within header 
	  of an IP data packet.  The traffic policy allows actions 
	  to be taken upon a match to be associated with each match rule.  
	  These rules can be more widely defined as “event-condition-action” 
	  (ECA) rules where the event is always the reception of a packet.  
	  </t>
	  <t>BGP (<xref target="RFC4271"></xref>) flow specification as defined by
	   <xref target="RFC8955"></xref>, <xref target="RFC8956"></xref>,  
	   <xref target="RFC9117"></xref> specifies the distribution of traffic filter policy (traffic 
	   filters and actions) via BGP to a mesh of BGP peers (IBGP and EBGP peers). 
	   The traffic filter policy is applied when packets are received on a router 
	   with the flow specification function turned on. The flow specification 
	   protocol defined in <xref target="RFC8955"></xref>, <xref target="RFC8956"></xref>, and 
	    <xref target="RFC9117"></xref> will be called BGP 
		flow specification version 1 (BGP FSv1) in this draft.
	 </t> 
	  <t> Some modern IP routers also include the abilities of firewalls which can 
	  match on a sequence of packet events based on administrative policy. These 
	  firewall capabilities allow for user ordering of match rules and user 
	  ordering of actions per match.  
	  </t>
	  <t>
	  Multiple deployed applications currently use BGP FSv1 to distribute traffic 
	  filter policy.  These applications include: 1) mitigation of Denial of 
	  Service (DoS), 2) traffic filtering in BGP/MPLS VPNS, and 3) centralized 
	  traffic control for networks utilizing SDN control of router firewall 
	  functions, 4) classifiers for insertion in an SFC, and 5) filters for SRv6 (segment routing v6).      
	  </t>
	  <t>During the deployment of BGP flow specification 
	  v1, the following issues were detected:  
	  <list style="symbols"> 
	  <t>lack of consistent TLV encoding prevented extension of encodings,   </t>
	  <t>inability to allow user defined order for filtering rules,</t>
	  <t>inability to order actions to provide deterministic interactions 
	    or to allow users to define order for actions, and</t>
	  <t>no clearly defined mechanisms for BGP peers which do 
	    not support flow specification v1.</t>
	  </list>
	  </t>
	  <t>
	  Networks currently cope with some of these issues by limiting the type of 
	  traffic filter policy sent in BGP.  Current Networks do not have a good 
	  workaround/solution for applications that receive but do not understand FSv1 
	  policies.  
	  </t>
	  <t>
	  FSv1 is a critical component of deployed applications. Therefore, this 
	  specification defines how FSv2 will interact with BGP peers that support 
	  either FSv2, FSv1, FSv2 and FSv1,or neither of them.  
	  It is expected that a transition to FSv2 will occur over time as new 
	  applications require FSv2 extensibility and user-defined ordering for rules 
	  and actions or network operators tire of the restrictions of FSv1 such as error 
	  handling issues and restricted topologies. 
	  </t>
	
	 </section> 
	 <section title="Definitions and Acronyms">
      <t><dl>
  		  <dt>AFI - </dt> <dd> Address Family Identifier</dd>
		  <dt>AS - </dt> <dd> Autonomous System </dd>
		  <dt>BGPSEC - </dt><dd> secure BGP <xref target="RFC8205"></xref> updated by <xref target="RFC8206"></xref> </dd>
  		  <dt>BGP Session ephemeral state - </dt><dd>state which does not survive the loss of BGP peer session.</dd>
		  <dt>BGP Commmunity Path Attribute - </dt><dd>BGP Path attribute for Community defined by 
		      <xref target="I-D.hares-idr-bgp-community-attribute"></xref></dd> 
		  <dt>Configuration state - </dt><dd> state which persist across a reboot of software module within 
		      a routing system or a reboot of a hardware routing device.</dd>
		  <dt>CPA - </dt><dd> BGP Community Path Attribute </dd>
		  <dt>DDOs - </dt><dd> Distributed Denial of Service.</dd>
		  <dt>Ephemeral state - </dt><dd> state which does not survive the reboot of a software module,
		   or a hardware reboot. Ephemeral state can be ephemeral configuration state or 
		   operational state.</dd> 
		  <dt>FSv1 - </dt><dd> Flow Specification version 1 [RFC8955] [RFC8956] </dd>
  		  <dt>FSv2 - </dt><dd> Flow Specification version 2 (this document) </dd>
		  <dt>FS - </dt><dd> Flow Specification (either v1 or v2) </dd> 
		  <dt> FS-EC - </dt><dd> FS related Extended Community with FS actions </dd>
		  <dt> FSv1-EC - </dt><dd> FSv1 related Extended Community with FS Actions supported by FSv1 </dd>
		  <dt> FSv2-EC - </dt><dd> FSv2 related Extended Community with FS Actions supported by FSv2 </dd>
		  <dt>NETCONF - </dt><dd> The Network Configuration Protocol <xref target="RFC6241"></xref>.</dd>
		  <dt>RESTCONF - </dt><dd>The RESTCONF configurati on Protocol <xref target="RFC8040"></xref> </dd>
		  <dt>RIB - </dt><dd>Routing Information Base.</dd>
		  <dt>ROA - </dt><dd> Route Origin Authentication <xref target="RFC9582"></xref></dd>
		  <dt>RR - </dt><dd>Route Reflector.</dd>
		  <dt> SAFI – </dt><dd>Subsequent Address Family Identifier </dd>
        </dl>
		</t>
    </section>
     <section title="RFC 2119 language">
	 <t>   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 <xref target="RFC2119"></xref>
   <xref target="RFC8174"></xref> when, and only when, they appear in all capitals as shown here.    
	 </t>
	 </section> 
</section>
<section title="Flow Specification Version 2 Primer ">
 <t>
 A BGP Flow Specification (v1 or v2) is an n-tuple containing one or more match criteria 
 that can be applied to IP traffic, traffic encapsulated in IP traffic or 
 traffic associated with IP traffic.  The following are
examples of such traffic: IP packet or an IP packet 
inside a L2 packet (Ethernet), an MPLS packet, and SFC flow.   
 </t>
 <t>
 A given Flow Specification NLRI may be associated with a set of path 
attributes depending on the particular application, and attributes within
that set may or may not include reachability information (e.g., NEXT_HOP). 
FSv1 and FSv2-DDOS use only the Extended Community to 
encode a set of pre-determined actions.  The full FSv2 uses either 
Extended Communities or Wide Communities to encode actions. 
 </t>
 <t>
 A particular application is identified by a specific AFI/SAFI (Address 
 Family Identifier/Subsequent Address Family Identifier) and corresponds to a 
 distinct set of RIBs. Those RIBs should be treated independently of each 
 other in order to assure noninterference between distinct applications. 
 </t>
 <t>
 BGP processing treats the NLRI as a key to entries in AFI/SAFI BGP 
 databases.   Entries that are placed in the Loc-RIB are then associated with 
 a given set of semantics which are application dependent. Standard BGP 
 mechanisms such as update filtering by NLRI or by attributes such as AS_PATH or 
 large communities apply to the BGP Flow Specification defined NLRI-types.  
 </t>
 <t>
 Network operators can control the propagation of BGP routes by enabling or 
 disabling the exchange of routes for a particular AFI/SAFI pair on a 
 particular peering session.  As such, the Flow Specification may be 
 distributed to only a portion of the BGP infrastructure. 
 </t>
<section title="Flow Specification v1  (FSv1) Overview">
	  <t>
	  The FSv1 NLRI defined in <xref target="RFC8955"></xref> and <xref target="RFC8956"></xref> 
      include 13 match conditions encoded for the following AFI/SAFIs: 
	  <list style="symbol">
	  <t>IPv4 traffic: AFI:1, SAFI:133 </t>
	  <t>IPv6 Traffic: AFI:2,  SAFI:133 </t>
	  <t>BGP/MPLS IPv4 VPN: AFI:1, SAFI: 134	 
	  </t>
	  <t> BGP/MPLS IPv6 VPN: AFI:2, SAFI: 134</t>
	  </list>
	  </t>
	  <t>If one considers the reception of the packet as an event,
	  then BGP FSv1 describes a set of 
	  Event-MatchCondition-Action (ECA) policies where: 
	  <list style="symbol">
	  <t>event is the reception of a packet, </t>
	  <t>condition stands for “match conditions” defined in the BGP NLRI as an n-tuple of component filters, and </t>
	  <t>the action is either: the default condition (accept traffic), or a set of actions (1 or more)
	   	  defined in Extended BGP Community values <xref target="RFC4360"></xref>.
	  </t>
	  </list>
	  </t>
	 <t>
	 The flow specification conditions and actions combine to make up FSv1 specification rules. Each FSv1 NLRI must 
	 have a type 1 component (destination prefix).  Extended Communities with FSv1 actions can be attached 
	 to a single NLRI or multiple NLRIs in a BGP message
	 </t> 
	  <t>
	  Within an AFI/SAFI pair, FSv1 rules are ordered based on the components in 
	  the packet (types 1-13) ordered from left-most to right-most and within the 
	  component types by value of the component. Rules are inserted in the rule
	  list by component-based order where an FSv1 rule with existing component type has 
	  higher precedence than one missing a specific component type, 	  
	  </t>
	  <t>
	  Since FSv1 specifications (<xref target="RFC8955"></xref>, <xref target="RFC8956"></xref>, and 
	  <xref target="RFC9117"></xref>) specify that the FSv1 NLRI MUST have a destination prefix 
	 (as component type 1) embedded in the flow specification, the FSv1 rules with destination 
	 components are ordered by IP Prefix comparison rules for IPv4 (<xref target="RFC8955"></xref>)
     and IPv6 (<xref target="RFC8956"></xref>). <xref target="RFC8955"></xref>
	 specifies that more specific prefixes (aka longest match) have higher precedence than 
	 that of less specific prefixes and that for prefixes of the same length the lower IP number 
	 is selected (lowest IP value).  <xref target="RFC8955"></xref> specifies that if the 
	 offsets within component 1 are the same, then the longest match and lowest IP comparison rules from 
	 <xref target="RFC8955"></xref> apply.  If the offsets are different, then the lower offset has precedence.  
	  </t>
	  <t>
	  These rules provide a set of FSv1 rules ordered by IP Destination Prefix 
	  by longest match and lowest IP address. 	 <xref target="RFC8955"></xref>
	  also states that the requirement for a destination prefix component “MAY be relaxed by explicit configuration” 
	  Since the rule insertions are based on comparing component types between two rules in order, 
	  this means the rules without destination prefixes are inserted after all rules which 
	  contain destination prefix component.
	  </t>

	  <t>
	 The actions specified in FSv1 are:
	 <list style="symbols">
	 <t>accept packet (default),</t>
	 <t>traffic flow limitation by bytes (0x6), </t>
	 <t>traffic-action (0x7),</t>
	 <t>redirect traffic (0x8),</t>
	 <t>mark traffic (0x9), and </t>
     <t>traffic flow limitation by packets (12, 0xC)</t>
	 </list>
	 </t> 
	 <t> Figure 1 shows a diagram of the FSv1 logical data structures
       with 5 rules.  If FSv1 rules have destination prefix components 
       (type=1) and FSv1 rule 5 does not have a destination prefix, 
        then FSv1 rule 5 will be inserted in the policy after rules 1-4.	   
<figure>
<artwork>
 
     +--------------------------------------+
     | Flow Specification (FS)              | 
     |  Policy                              | 
     +--------------------------------------+	
       	 ^               ^              ^
         |               |              | 
         |               |              |   
+--------^----+  +-------^-------+     +-------------+    
|   FS Rule 1 |  |   FS Rule 2   | ... |  FS rule 5  |
+-------------+  +---------------+     +-------------+
                    :          :        
                    :          :        
                 ...:          :........   
                 :                     :
       +---------V-----------+    +----V-------------+
       |  Rule Condition     |    |   Rule Action    |
       |  in BGP NLRIs       |    | in BGP extended  |
       | AFI/SAFI 1/133,     |    | Communities      |
       | 1/134, 2/133, 2/134 |    |                  |  
       +-------------------+      +------------------+
           :     :    :                 :      :    :
      .....:     .    :.....       .....:      .    :.....
      :          :         :       :           :         :
 +----V---+  +---V----+ +--V---+ +-V------+ +--V-----++--V---+
 |  Match |  | match  | |match | | Action | | action ||action|
 |Operator|  |Variable| |Value | |Operator| |variable|| Value|
 |*1      |  |        | |      | |(subtype| |        ||      |
 +--------+  +--------+ +------+ +--------+ +--------++------+
 
   *1 match operator may be complex. 
 
   Figure 2-1: BGP Flow Specification v1 Policy 
</artwork>
</figure>
</t>
</section>
<section title="FSv2 Overview">
<t>
FSv2 allows the user to order the flow specification rules and the actions 
associated with a rule. Each FSv2 rule may have one or more match conditions 
and one or more associated actions. 
The IDR WG draft <xref target="I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-v2"></xref> 
contains the complete solution for FSv2. However, this complete solution makes 
implementation of these features a large task so, please see the next section on 
how the complete solution is broken into a series of solutions. 
This section describres the complete solution.  
</t>
<t>
The original FSv2 specification <xref target="I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-v2"></xref> 
supports the components and actions for the following: 
<list style="symbols">
<t>IPv4 (AFI=1, SAFI=TBD1),     
</t>
<t>IPv6 (AFI=2, SAFI=TBD1), 
</t>
<t>L2 (AFI=6, SAFI=TDB1) [described in [I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-l2vpn]), 
</t>
<t>BGP/MPLS IPv4 VPN: (AFI=1, SAFI=TBD2),
</t>
<t> BGP/MPLS IPv6 VPN: (AFI=2, SAFI=TBD2),
</t>
<t> BGP/MPLS L2VPN (AFI=25, SAFI=TDB2) [described in [I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-l2vpn]), 
</t>
<t> SFC: (AFI=31, SAFI=TBD1),  
</t>
<t> SFC VPN (AFI=31, SAFI=TBD2), 
</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>The IDR specification for L2 VPN traffic was specified in 
<xref target="I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-l2vpn"></xref>.  An IDR specification 
for tunneled traffic is in <xref target="I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-nvo3"></xref>.  
Both of these drafts were targeted for FSv1, but the WG decided to 
implement these as FSv2. The series of FSv2 support the same scope 
of functionality in a series of documents.
</t>
<t>FSv2 operates in the ships-in-the night model with FSv1 so network 
operators can manipulate which the distribution of FSv2 
and FSv1 using configuration parameters.  
Since the lack of deterministic ordering was an FSv1 problem, 
this specification provides rules and protocol features to keep 
filters in a deterministic order between FSv1 and FSv2. 
</t>
<t>
The basic principles regarding ordering of flow specification filter rules are: 
<list>
<t>1) Rule-0 (zero) is defined to be 0/0 with the “permit-all” action. </t>
<t>2) FSv2 rules are ordered based on user-specified order. 
<list>
<t>The user-specified order is carried in the FSv2 NLRI and a 
numerical lower value takes precedence over a numerically higher value.  
For rules received with the same order value, the FSv1 rules apply 
(order by component type and then by value of the components).  
 </t>
</list>
</t>
<t>3) FSv2 rules are added starting with Rule 1 and FSv1 rules are added after FSv2 rules 
<list>
<t>For example, BGP Peer A has FSv2 data base with 10 FSv2 rules (1-10).  FSv1 user number
is configured to start at 301 so 10 FSv1 rules are added at 301-310. 
 </t>
</list>  
</t>
<t>4) An FSv2 peer may receive BGP NLRI routes from a FSv1 peer or a BGP peer that does not support FSv1 or FSv2.  
The capabilities sent by a BGP peer indicate whether the AFI/SAFI can be received (FSv1 NLRI or FSv2 NLRI).
</t>
<t>5) Associate a chain of actions to rules based on user-defined action number (1-n).  (optional) 
<list>
<t>If no actions are associated with a filter rule, the default is to drop traffic the filter rules match</t>
<t>An action chain of 1-n actions can be associated with a set of filter rules can 
via Extended Communities or a Community Path attribute with a FSv2 type.  Only the Community 
attribute allows for user-defined order for the actions. If an implementation 
allows for FSv2 actions with user-ordering and Extended Community actions, the
by default the Extended Community are ordered after the user-ordered actions. 
This FSv2 action order default can be changed by the Action Chain Ordering FSv2 action. 
Currently, there is no FSv2 definition for an action dependency chain, but 
space has been left in the BGP Community Path attribute format for development 
of action dependency mechanisms.   
</t>    
</list> 
</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>
Figure 2-2 provides a logical diagram of the FSv2 structure
<figure>
<artwork>
 
       +--------------------------------+ 	
       |          Rule Group            | 
       +--------------------------------+			   
         ^          ^                  ^
         |          |---------         |
         |                   |         ------
         |                   |               |
+--------^-------+   +-------^-----+     +---^-----+
|      Rule1     |   |     Rule2   | ... |  Rule-n |
+----------------+   +-------------+     +---------+ 
                      :  :   :    :     
    :.................:  :   :    :
    :	    :............:   :    :
 +--V--+ +--V-------+        :    :        
 |order| |Dependent | .......:    : 
 |     | | filter   | : 
 +-----+ | chain    | :
         +----------+ :           :
                      :           :
   +------------------V--+  +-----V----------------+
   |Rule Match condition |  | Rule Action          |
   +---------------------+  +----------------------+
      :     :    :           :    :     :   :    :
      :     :    :    +------V-+  :     :   :    :  
      :     :    :    | action |  :     :   :    : 
      :     :    :    | order  |  :     :   :    :
      :     :    :    +--------+  :     :   :    :  
      :     :    :     +----------V-+   :   :    : 
      :     :    :     | action     |   :   :    :  
      :     :    :     | Dependency |   :   :    :   
      :     :    :     | chain      |   :   :    : 
      :     :    :     +------------+	:   :    :......... 
      :     :    :..........            :   :             :     
      :     ......         :       .....:   :...          :
      :          :         :       :           :          :
 +----V---+  +--V-----+ +--V---+ +-V------+ +--V-----+ +--V---+
 |  Match |  | match  | |match | | Action | | action | |action|
 |Operator|  |variable| |Value | |Operator| |Variable| | Value|
 +--------+  +--------+ +------+ +--------+ +--------+ +------+

   Figure 2-2: BGP FSv2 Data storage
</artwork>
</figure>
</t>
</section>
</section> 
<section title="FSv2 NLRI Formats and Actions">
<section title="FSv2 NLRI Format">
<t> The BGP FSv2 uses an NRLI with the format for
 AFIs for IPv4 (AFI = 1), IPv6 (AFI = 2), L2 (AFI = 6), L2VPN (AFI=25), and 
 SFC (AFI=31) with SAFIs TBD1 and TBD2 to support transmission of the flow specification
 which supports user ordering of traffic filters and actions for IP traffic and 
 IP VPN traffic.
 </t>
 <t>
  This NLRI information is encoded using MP_REACH_NLRI and MP_UNREACH_NLRI attributes defined in
 <xref target="RFC4760"></xref>.  When advertising FSv2 NLRI, the length of the 
  Next-Hop Network Address MUST be set to 0. Upon reception, 
  the Network Address in the Next-Hop field MUST be ignored.  
 </t>
<t>Implementations wishing to exchange flow specification rules MUST use 
BGP's Capability Advertisement facility to exchange the Multiprotocol Extension Capability Code 
(Code 1) as defined in <xref target="RFC4760"></xref>, and 
indicate a capability for FSv1, FSv2 (Code TBD3), or both.  
</t> 
<t>The AFI/SAFI NLRI for BGP Flow Specification version 2 (FSv2) has the format:
 <figure>
 <artwork>
 +--------------------------------+
 | NLRI length (2 octets)         |
 +--------------------------------+
 | TLVs+                          |
 +--------------------------------+
 
  Figure 3-1 - NLRI format 
 </artwork>
 </figure> 
 </t>
  <t>
  where:
  <list style="symbols">
  <t> NLRI length: length of field including all SubTLVs in octets.  </t> 
  <t> TLV+ - indicates the repetition of the TLV field  </t>
  </list> 
</t> 
<t>Each each TLV has the Format:
<figure>
<artwork>
  
     TLV format   
 +--------------------------------+
 | +============================+ |
 | | order (4 octets)           | |
 | +----------------------------+ |
 | | Dependent filters chain    | | 
 | |(type, chain ID, count,     | |
 | | item) (8 octets)           | |
 | +----------------------------+ | 
 | + FSv2 Filter type (2 octet) + |
 | +----------------------------+ |
 | + length TLVs (2 octet)      + |
 | + ---------------------------+ |
 | + value (variable)           + |
 | +----------------------------+ |
 +-------------------------------+

 Figure 3-2 - TLV format within FSv2 NLRI  
</artwork>
  </figure>
</t>
  <t>
  where:
  <list style="symbols">
  <t> order: flow-specification global rule order number (4 octets). </t>
  <t> Dependent Filters Chain: 8 octets for identifying a chain of 
   FSv2 filters that must be deployed at the same time.  
   <list style="hanging">
   <t hangText="Why needed in FSv2:">Flow spedcification filters 
   distributed in BGP UPDATE packets may be broken into multiple 
   packets. In FSv2, the dependent filter ID allows the filter chains
   to be identified across all user-defined or default filters.
   The rules can be installed from BGP into the firewall after 
   all filters have been installed.
   </t>   
   <t hangText="For basic FSV2:">This field is required to be set to all zero, 
   and ignored upon reception. 
   </t>
   <t hangText="For future FSV2:">Future specifications will specify the 
   use of this field, and future specifications will continue to ignore
   the field if the value is all zeros. 
   </t>
   </list> 
   </t>
  <t> FSv2 Filter type: contains a type for FSv2 TLV format of the NRLI (2 octets) which can be: 
  <list>
  <t>0 - reserved, </t>
  <t>1 - IP Basic Filter Rules </t>
  <t>2 - Extended IP Filter rules </t> 
  <t>3 - MPLS Traffic Rules </t>
  <t>4 - L2 traffic rules</t>
  <t>5-  SFC Traffic rules </t>
  <t>6 - Tunneled traffic </t> 
  </list>
  </t>
  <t> length-TLV: is the length of the value part of the Sub-TLV, 
  </t>
  <t>value: value depends on the type of FSv2 Filter type.
  </t>
 </list>  
  </t>
  <t>All FSv2 function must recognize valid Filter Types, even if 
  the handling of the Filter types are not supported by the implementation. 
  The TLV allows all FSv2 Filter types to be passed, even if the Filter rules
  cannot be installed. 
  </t> 
  <t>This specification only defines operation of the IP Basic Filter Rules 
  that all FSv2 must support. 
  </t> 
  <section title="Ordering of TLVs within the FSv2 NLRI">
  <t> For ease of processing, the ordering within the FSV2 NLRI
  SHOULD be by order number.  Within an order value (e.g. 20), 
  it MAY be helpful to group the filters by the same filter type (e.g. 1 for IP Basic). 
  The order within a filter type (e.g. IP Basic Filters) is defined within a filter type. 
  </t>
  </section> 
</section>
<section title="FSv2 Basic IP Filters " >
<section title="Operators for comparison">
<section title="Numeric Operator (numeric_op)">
<t>   This operator is encoded as shown in Figure 3-3. 
<figure>
<artwork>

    0   1   2   3   4   5   6   7
  +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
  | e | a |  len  | 0 |lt |gt |eq |
  +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+

        Figure 3-3: Numeric Operator (numeric_op)

</artwork>
</figure>
</t>
<dl>
<dt>e (end-of-list bit): </dt><dd>Set in the last {op, value} pair in the list
</dd>
<dt>a (AND bit):</dt><dd> If unset, the result of the previous {op, value} pair
   is logically ORed with the current one.  If set, the operation
   is a logical AND.  In the first operator octet of a sequence,
   it MUST be encoded as unset and MUST be treated as always unset
   on decoding.  The AND operator has higher priority than OR for
   the purposes of evaluating logical expressions.
</dd>
<dt>len (length): </dt><dd>The length of the value field for this operator given
         as (1 &lt;&lt; len).  This encodes 1 (len=00), 2 (len=01), 4
         (len=10), and 8 (len=11) octets.
</dd>
<dt>0 </dt>
<dd>MUST be set to 0 on NLRI encoding and MUST be ignored during decoding
</dd>	
<dt>lt </dt>
<dd>less-than comparison between data and value 
</dd>
<dt>gt:</dt>
<dd>greater-than comparison between data and value
</dd>
<dt> eq:</dt>
<dd>equality between data and value
</dd>
</dl>
<t> The bits lt, gt, and eq can be combined to produce common relational
   operators, such as "less or equal", "greater or equal", and "not
   equal to", as shown in Table 3-1. 
</t>
<t> 
<figure> 
<artwork> 

            +====+====+====+==================================+
            | lt | gt | eq | Resulting operation              |
            +====+====+====+==================================+
            | 0  | 0  | 0  | false (independent of the value) |
            +----+----+----+----------------------------------+
            | 0  | 0  | 1  | == (equal)                       |
            +----+----+----+----------------------------------+
            | 0  | 1  | 0  | &gt; (greater than)                 |
            +----+----+----+----------------------------------+
            | 0  | 1  | 1  | &lt;= (greater than or equal)       |
            +----+----+----+----------------------------------+
            | 1  | 0  | 0  | &lt; (less than)                    |
            +----+----+----+----------------------------------+
            | 1  | 0  | 1  | &lt;= (less than or equal)          |
            +----+----+----+----------------------------------+
            | 1  | 1  | 0  | != (not equal value)             |
            +----+----+----+----------------------------------+
            | 1  | 1  | 1  | true (independent of the value)  |
            +----+----+----+----------------------------------+

               Table 3-1: Comparison Operation Combinations
</artwork>
</figure>
</t>
</section> 
<section title="Bitmask Operator (bitmask_op)">
<t>This operator is encoded as shown in Figure 3-4. 
<figure>
<artwork>

     0   1   2   3   4   5   6   7
    +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
    | e | a |  len  | 0 | 0 |not| m |
    +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+

    Figure 3-4 Bitmask Operator (bitmask_op)
</artwork>
</figure> 
Where: 
</t>
<dl>
 <dt>e, a, len (end-of-list bit, AND bit, and length field):</dt>
<dd> Most significant nibble; defined in the Numeric Operator format in section 3-x. 
</dd>
<dt>not (NOT bit):</dt>
<dd>If set, logical negation of operation. 
</dd>
<dt>m (Match bit):</dt>
<dd>If set, this is a bitwise match operation defined as
    "(data AND value) == value"; if unset, (data AND value)
    evaluates to TRUE if any of the bits in the value mask are set
         in the data.
</dd>
<dt>0 (all 0 bits):</dt>
<dd> MUST be set to 0 on NLRI encoding and MUST be ignored during decoding 
</dd>
</dl>
</section> 
</section> 
<section title="IP Basic Filters (Filter type=1(0x01))">
<t>
The format of the IP Basic TLV value field is shown in Figure 3-5.  
The IP header for the VPN case is specified in section 3.5.      
</t>
<t>
 <figure>
 <artwork>

   Top-level TLV            
 +-------------------------------+   
 | +===========================+ |
 | | order (4 octets)          | |
 | +---------------------------+ |
 | | dependency filter chain   | |
 | |  (8 octets)               | |
 | +---------------------------+ | 
 | + FSv2 Filter type = 1      + |
 | | (2 octets)                | | 
 | +---------------------------+ |
 | + length (2 octet)          + |
 | + --------------------------+ |
 | + value (variable)          + |
 | +---------------------------+ |
 +-------------------------------+

Figure 3-5 NLRI format for FSv2 IP Filter Type
</artwork>
</figure>
</t>
<t>Where: 
<list> 
<t> order - is an 4 octet field with a 
value 1-N.  The value 0 (zero) is invalid. 
</t>
<t> dependency filter chain - is an 8 octet field
which must be all zero for the IP Basic Filter rules. 
</t> 
<t> length - is a 2 octet field indicating the 
length of the value field. 
</t>
<t> value - is a variable field comprised of 
a sequence of component TLVs: 
<figure>
<artwork>

 +--------------------------------+
 | + ---------------------------+ |
 | + Components TLV+ (variable) + |
 | +----------------------------+ |
 +--------------------------------+
 
 Figure 3-6 Value Field 
</artwork> 
</figure>
</t>
<t>
<figure> 
<artwork> 

  Where the Component TLVs are: 

   +----------------------------+
   |  Component Type (1 octet)  |
   +----------------------------+
   |  length (1 octet)          |
   + ---------------------------+
   |  value (variable)          |
   +----------------------------+
   
Figure 3-7 – IP header Component TLVs  

</artwork>
</figure>
</t>
<t>
Where:
<list>
<t>Component type: component values are defined in 
the “Flow Specification Component types” registry for IPv4 and IPv6 by 
<xref target="RFC8955"></xref>, <xref target="RFC8956"></xref>, and 
<xref target="I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-srv6"></xref>
</t>
<t>length: length of SubTLV (varies depending on the component type)>  
</t>
<t>value: dependent on component type. 
</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>Many of the components use the operators [numeric_op] and [bitmask_op] 
defined in <xref target="RFC8955"></xref>   
</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>The list of valid SubTLV types appears in Table 3-2 
for filter type of IP Filters (type=1).  Other filters
beyond these filters may be defined other filter types
(e.g. IP Extended Filters). 
</t>
<t>
<figure> 
<artwork>
Table 3-2 IP SubTLV Types for IP filters 
          for IP Basic FSv2
		  
Sub-TLV   Definition 
--------  ---------------------  
   1 -    IP Destination prefix 
   2 -    IP Source prefix 
   3 –    IPv4 Protocol / 
          IPv6 Upper Layer Protocol
   4 –    Port  
   5 –    Destination Port 
   6 –    Source Port
   7 –    ICMPv4 type / ICMPv6 type  
   8 –    ICMPv4 code / ICPv6 code 
   9 –    TCP Flags 
  10 –    Packet length
  11 –    DSCP  
  12 –    Fragment 
  13 –    Flow Label 
 
  14-63   Reserved for IP Filter Extensions 
  64-150  Reserved for Non-IP Filters 
          (L2, MPLS, tunnel) - STD action 
 151-191  Reserved for Associated Data 
 192-249  FCFS
 250-255  Reserved 
 
</artwork>
</figure>
</t>
</section>
<section title="Ordering within the IP Basic Filter TLVs">
<t>
The ordering of components within the value field of the 
IP Basic TLV is by component types (1-13). 
</t>
<t> 
If the SubTLV types are the same, then the value fields are compared 
using mechanisms defined in <xref target="RFC8955"></xref>
and <xref target="RFC8956"></xref> and MUST be in ascending order.  
NLRIs having component TLVs which do not follow the above ordering rules 
MUST be considered as malformed by a BGP FSv2 propagator. This rule 
prevents any ambiguities that arise from the multiple copies of 
the same NLRI from multiple BGP FSv2 propagators. 
A BGP implementation SHOULD treat such malformed NLRIs as "Treat-as-withdraw" 
<xref target="RFC7606"></xref>.  
</t>
<t>See <xref target="RFC8955"></xref>, <xref target="RFC8956"></xref>, and
<xref target="I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-srv6"></xref>. for specific details. 
</t>
</section> 
<section title="FSv2 Components for IP Basic TLVs">
<section title="IP Destination Prefix (type = 1)">
<t>	IPv4 Name: IP Destination Prefix   (reference:  <xref target="RFC8955"></xref>) </t>
<t>	IPv6 Name: IPv6 Destination Prefix (reference:  <xref target="RFC8956"></xref>) </t>
<t></t>
<t>IPv4 length: Prefix length in bits 
</t>
<t>IPv4 value: IPv4 Prefix (variable length)
</t>
<t>IPv6 length: length of value 
</t>
<t>IPv6 value: [offset (1 octet)] [pattern (variable)] [padding(variable)] 
</t>
<t>If IPv6 length = 0 and offset = 0, then component matches every address.  
Otherwise, length must be offset "less than" length "less than" 129 or component is malformed. 
</t>
</section>
<section title="IP Source Prefix (type = 2) ">
<t>	IPv4 Name: IP Source Prefix      (reference:  <xref target="RFC8955"></xref>) </t>
<t>	IPv6 Name: IPv6 Source Prefix  (reference: <xref target="RFC8956"></xref>) </t>
<t></t>
<t>IPv4 length: Prefix length in bits </t>
<t>IPv4 value: Source IPv4 Prefix (variable length)</t>
<t>IPv6 length: length of value </t>
<t>IPv6 value: [offset (1 octet)] [pattern (variable)][padding(variable)] 
</t>
<t></t>
<t>
If IPv6 length = 0 and offset = 0, then component matches every address.  Otherwise, length must be offset &lt; length &lt; 129 
or component is malformed. 
</t>
</section>
<section title="IP Protocol (type = 3) ">
<t>	IPv4 Name: IP Protocol  IP Source Prefix  (reference:  <xref target="RFC8955"></xref>) </t>
<t>	IPv6 Name: IPv6 Upper-Layer Protocol:   (reference: <xref target="RFC8956"></xref>) </t>
<t></t>
<t>IPv4 length: variable </t>
<t>IPv4 value: [numeric_op, value]+</t>
<t></t>
<t>IPv6 length: variable </t>
<t>IPv6 value: [numeric_op, value}+ </t>
<t>where the value following each numeric_op is a single octet. </t>
</section>
 <section title="Port (type = 4)">
<t>	IPv4/IPv6 Name: Port (reference:  <xref target="RFC8955"></xref>),
 <xref target="RFC8956"></xref>) </t>
<t>Filter defines: a set of port values to match either destination port or source port. 
</t>
<t></t>
<t>IPv4 length: variable </t>
<t>IPv4 value: [numeric_op, value]+</t>
<t></t>
<t>IPv6 length: variable </t>
<t>IPv6 value: [numeric_op, value]+</t>
<t></t>
<t>where the value following each numeric_op is a single octet. </t>
<t>Note-1: (from FSV1) In the presence of the port component (destination or source port), 
only a TCP (port 6) or UDP (port 17) packet can match the entire flow specification. 
If the packet is fragmented and this is not the first fragment, then the system
may not be able to find the header.  At this point, the FSv2 filter may fail to 
detect the correct flow.  Similarly, if other IP options or the encapsulating 
security payload (ESP) is present, then the  node may not be able to describe the transport header
and the FSv2 filter may fail to detect the flow. 
</t>
<t>The restriction in note-1 comes from the inheritance of the FSv1 filter component for port.  
If better resolution is desired, a new FSv2 filter should be defined. 
</t>
<t>Note-2: FSv2 component only matches the first upper layer protocol value. 
</t>
</section>
 <section title="Destination Port (type = 5) ">
<t>	IPv4/IPv6 Name: Destination Port    (reference:  <xref target="RFC8955"></xref>), <xref target="RFC8956"></xref>) </t>
<t>Filter defines: a list of match filters for destination port for TCP or UDP within a received packet
</t>
<t>Length: variable </t>
<t> Component Value format: [numeric_op, value]+
</t>
</section>
 <section title="Source Port (type = 6)  ">
<t>	IPv4/IPv6 Name: Source Port (reference:  <xref target="RFC8955"></xref>), <xref target="RFC8956"></xref>)
 </t>
<t>Filter defines: a list of match filters for source port for TCP or UDP within a received packet
</t>
<t>IPv4/IPv6 length: variable </t>
<t>IPv4/Ipv6 value: [numeric_op, value]+
</t>
</section>
 <section title="ICMP Type (type = 7) ">
<t>	IPv4: ICMP Type (reference:  <xref target="RFC8955"></xref>)
</t>
<t>	Filter defines: Defines: a list of match criteria for ICMPv4 type 
</t>  
<t>IPv6: ICMPv6 Type (reference: <xref target="RFC8956"></xref>) 
</t>
<t>Filter defines: a list of match criteria for ICMPv6 type. 
</t>
<t> </t>
<t>IPv4/IPv6 length: variable</t>
<t>IPv4/IPv6 value: [numeric_op, value]+ </t>
</section>
 <section title="ICMP Code (type = 8) ">
<t>	IPv4: ICMP Type (reference:  <xref target="RFC8955"></xref>) </t>
<t>	Filter defines: a list of match criteria for ICMPv4 code. 
</t>  
<t>IPv6: ICMPv6 Type (reference: <xref target="RFC8956"></xref>) </t>
<t>Filter defines: a list of match criteria for ICMPv6 code. </t>
<t> </t>
<t>IPv4/IPv6 length: variable</t>
<t>IPv4/IPv6 value: [numeric_op, value]+ </t>
</section>
 <section title="TCP Flags (type = 9) " >
<t>	IPv4/IPv6: TCP Flags Code  (reference:  <xref target="RFC8955"></xref>)
</t>
<t>Filter defines: a list of match criteria for TCP Control bits 
</t>  
<t> </t>
<t>IPv4/IPv6 length: variable</t>
<t>IPv4/IPv6 value: [bitmask_op, value]+ </t>
<t></t>
<t>Note: a 2 octets bitmask match is always used for TCP-Flags </t> 
</section>
 <section title="Packet length (type = 10 (0x0A)) ">
<t>	IPv4/IPv6: Packet Length (reference: <xref target="RFC8955"></xref>, <xref target="RFC8956"></xref>) 
</t>
<t>	Filter defines: a list of match criteria for length of packet 
(excluding L2 header but including IP header). 
</t>  
<t>IPv4/IPv6 length: variable</t>
<t>IPv4/IPv6 value: [numeric_op, value]+ </t>
<t></t>
<t>Note:<xref target="RFC8955"></xref> uses either 1 or 2 octet values. 
</t>
</section>
 <section title="DSCP (Differentiaed Services Code Point)(type = 11 (0x0B)) ">
 
<t>	IPv4/IPv6: DSCP Code  (reference:  <xref target="RFC8955"></xref>,  <xref target="RFC8956"></xref>) 
</t>
<t>	Filter defines: a list of match criteria for DSCP code values to match the
6-bit DSCP field.  
</t> 
<t> </t>
<t>IPv4/IPv6 length: variable</t>
<t>IPv4/IPv6 value: [numeric_op, value]+ </t>
<t></t>
<t>Note: This component uses the Numeric Operator (numeric_op) described in
   <xref target="RFC8955"></xref> in section 4.2.1.1.  
   Type 11 component values MUST be encoded as single
   octet (numeric_op len=00). 
  </t>
  <t>The six least significant bits contain the DSCP value.  All other
   bits SHOULD be treated as 0.
   </t>
</section>
 <section title="Fragment (type = 12 (0x0C))   ">
<t>	IPv4/IPv6: Fragment  (reference:  <xref target="RFC8955"></xref>,  <xref target="RFC8956"></xref>) 
</t>
<t>	Filter defines: a list of match criteria for specific IP fragments.
</t> 
<t> </t>
<t>Length: variable</t>
<t>Component Value format: [bitmask_op, value]+</t>
<t>Bitmask values are:</t>
<t>
<figure>
<artwork>
      0    1   2   3   4   5   6  7	
    +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ 
    | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |LF |FF |IsF| DF| 
    +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ 
                 Figure 3-8
</artwork>
</figure>
</t>
<t> Where:
<list>
<t> DF (don’t fragment): match If IP header flags bit 1 (DF) is 1.
</t>
<t>IsF(is a fragment other than first: match if IP header fragment offset is not 0. 
</t>
<t> FF (First Fragment): Match if <xref target="RFC0791"></xref> IP Header Fragment offset is zero and Flags Bit-2 (MF) is 1.
</t>
<t>LF (last Fragment): Match if <xref target="RFC0791"></xref> IP header Fragment is not 0 And Flags bit-2 (MF) is 0
</t>
<t>0: MUST be sent in NLRI encoding as 0, and MUST be ignored during reception. 
</t>
</list>
</t>
</section>
 <section title="Flow Label(type = 13 (0xOD)) ">
<t>	IPv4/IPv6: Fragment  (reference:  <xref target="RFC8956"></xref>) 
</t>
<t>	Filter defines: a list of match criteria for 20-bit Flow Label in the IPv6 header field.   
</t> 
<t> </t>
<t>Length: variable</t>
<t>Component Value format: [numeric_op, value]+
</t>
</section> 
</section> 
</section>
<section title="FSv2 Actions for FSv2 IP Basic ">
<t> The IP Basic FSv2 allows FSv2 actions to be sent in an 
Extended Community (FSv2-EC) for IPv4 and IPv6.   
The Extended Community encodes the Flow Specification actions in the Extended IPv4 
Community format <xref target="RFC4360"></xref> or in the extended IPv6 
Community format <xref target="RFC5701"></xref>.  The FSv2-EC actions
cannot be ordered by the user and some FSv2-EC interaction cause conflicting actions. 
</t>
<t>
This section defines the FSv2-EC actions as FSv1 actions plus one additional action
(Action Chain Ordering).  This setion reviews the existing FSv2-EC action formats
(section 3.3.1), the interaction between existing FS-EC actions (section 3.3.2), 
and the FSv2 default order of actions (section 3.2.3). 
For those familar with the FSv1 actions, Tables 3-7 and 3-8 in section 3.3.3 have the default order for
FSv2-EC actions. 
</t>
<t>
Section 3.4 defines Action Chain Ordering (ACO) FSv2-EC. The ACO FSv2-EC provides 
two actions. The first action signals if implementation specific ordering of 
FS-EC actions replaces the default FSv2 ordering. The second is handles an a
ction failiure if multiple actions are attached to a filter match.  
If there are multiple actions are attached in a chain, the first action 
could fail.  The ACO FSv2-EC aids the transition between FSv1 actions
which are ordered uniquely by each implementation, and the 
FSv2 actions which use a global default. 
</t>
<t>
The implementer and the operator deploying need to
be aware of default order of actions and the 
interactions between any set of FSv2 actions.  
</t> 
<section title="FSv2 Extended Community Actions inherited from FSv1"> 
<t>This section reviews FSv1 actions in Extended Communities (IPv4 and IPv6)
and conflicts FSv1 actions. The FSv2 IP Basic uses these basic FSv1 
with plus one additional FSv2 specific FS-EC. The additional
FSv2 Extended Community (FSv2-EC) is the Action Chain Ordering (ACO)
Extended Community (ACO-EC). 
</t>
<t>
This section first reviews the Extended Communities format (Figure 3-9) and 
describes where Flow Specification (FS) related Extended communities (EC)
have been allocated (see Table 3-3 and Table 3-4.)  
</t> 
<t>
The format of the Extended Community for IPv4 defined in <xref target="RFC4360"></xref>
is shown in Figure 3-9 with 2 octet type that is split into a high byte and low byte. 
The format of the IPv4 Extended Community is shown in Figure 3-10.  
<figure>
<artwork>

  0                   1                   2                   3
  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |  Type high    |  Type low(*)  |                               |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+          Value (6 octets)     |
 |                                                               |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                    Figure 3-9
</artwork>
</figure>
</t>
<t> The high byte of the Type field of the Extended Community (EC)
has the definitions found in Table 3-3. Only Sume of these are defined 
to be used for FSv1.  Only the FSv1 Extended Communities (FSv1-ECs) 
can be used with the FSv2 NLRI which are listed as "yes". 
One oddity is that the FS specification for interface sets
allocated the "high byte", but did not register any sub-types
since the draft was not approved by IDR (see *1).  
The high byte for FS Redirect/Mirror (RDIPv4C) is requested
by the latest version of <xref target="I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip"></xref>
to be deprecated. 
</t>
<t>
The remainder of the FS-EC allocations are split between three  
types: redirection function, generic, and SFC.  The sub-sections in 
this section review these three types of FS-EC. 
<figure>
<artwork>
Table 3-3 Transitive Extended Community types 
   (high byte of type field)  
 
H-byte   FSv1 Description        Name    S-Type FS document
======   ==================      ====    ====== ==========
0x00     Transitive 2-octet AS   T-2AS    yes    No          
0x01     Transitive IPv4         T-IPv4   yes    yes: RDIP   
0x02     Transitive 4-octet      T-4AS    yes    No
0x03     Transitive opaque       T-OPQ    yes    No 
0x06     EVPN (sub-types)        EVPN     yes    No    
0x07     FS 4-octet AS and Group T-ASG    yes    yes: ifset *1          
0x08     FS Redirect/Mirror      RDIPv4C  yes    yes: RDIP *2               
0x09     FS Redirect to          RGID     yes    yes: RGID *3 
            indirection ID 
0x0a     Transport class         TP-Class no     no 
0x0b     FSv1 SFC                T-SFC    yes    yes: RFC9015 
0x0c     SRv6 MUP EC             T-SRv6M  no     no 
0x80     Generic Part-1          T-GenP1  yes    yes: RFC8955
0x81     Generic Part-2          T-GenP2  yes    yes: RFC8955
0x82     Generic Part-3          T-GenP3  yes    yes: RFC8955   
</artwork>
</figure>
</t>
<t>
<dl>
<dt>*1 - </dt><dd> No sub-byte registry formed </dd>
<dt>*2 - </dt><dd> Deprecated based on  <xref target="I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip"></xref> </dd>
<dt>*3 - </dt><dd> No sub-byte registry formed <xref target="I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect"></xref>  </dd>
</dl>
</t>
<t>
<figure>
<artwork>
 
               Table 3-4 
  FSv1 Transitive Extended Communities for IP Basic 
      High-Low byte of Transitive FS-EC 
 
H-L      FSv1 Description               Name     FS document
======   ==================             ====     ==========        
0x01-0C  Transitive IPv4                RDIPv4   RDIP   
0x07-02  FSv1 for an Interface set      TAIS     ifset                       
0x09-xx  Redirect to Indirection ID     RGID     RGID  
0x0b-00  SFC Reserved                   SFC-R    RFC9015 
0x0b-01  SFVC SFIR POOL Identifier      SFIR-PI  RFC9015 
0x0b-02  SFC MPLS label stack Swapping  SFC-MPLS RFC9015 
         or stacking labels
0x80-06  Traffic rate limit by bytes    TRB      RFC8955
0x80-07  Traffic Action                 TA       RFC8955
         (sample, terminal)   
0x80-08  Redirection to VRF (2 AS form) RDIP     RFC8955
0x80-09  Traffic mark DSCP              TM       RFC8955
0x80-0C  Traffic rate limit by packets  TRP      RFC8955 
0x81-08  Redirect to VPN (IPv4 form)    RDIP     RFC8955
0x81-08  Redirect to VPN (4 AS form)    RDIP     RFC8955  
</artwork>
</figure>
</t>
<t> References: 
<dl>
<dt>ifset: </dt><dd> <xref target="I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-interfaceset"></xref> </dd>
<dt>RDIP: </dt><dd><xref target="I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip"></xref> </dd>
<dt>RGID: </dt><dd><xref target="I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect"></xref>  </dd>
<dt>RFC9015:</dt><dd><xref target="RFC9015"></xref> </dd>
<dt>RFC8955: </dt><dd><xref target="RFC8955"></xref></dd>
</dl>
</t>
<t>
The Transitive IPv6-Address-Specific Extended Community encodes the Flow Specification actions 
in the Extended Community format specified in <xref target="RFC5701"></xref>
shown in Figure 3-10. Table 3-3 lists the 4 octet format for high-byte and low-byte. 
Note that there are two allocations for redirect from IPv6. 
<figure>
<artwork>

  0                   1                   2                   3
  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 | Type (high)   |  Sub-type     |   Global Administrator        |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-|
 |         Global Administrator (cont.)                          |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |         Global Administrator (cont.)                          |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |         Global Administrator (cont.)                          |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 | Global Administrator (cont.)  |   Local Administrator         |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

              Figure 3-10  
 
The 20 octets of value are given in the following format: 
Global Administrator: IPv6 address assigned by Internet Registry 
Local Administrator:  2 bytes of Local Administrator 
</artwork>
</figure>
</t>
<t>
<figure>
<artwork>
                  Table 3-5 
Transitive IPv6-Address-Specific Extended Community Types 
 
H-L byte  FSv1 Description        Name     FS document
======    ==================      =======  ==========
0x0000    Unassigned 
0x0001    Unassigned 
0x0002    Route Target            RT        No
0x0003    Route origin            ROrg      No (deprecated) 
0x0004    OSPFv3 Route Attribute  OSPFv3    No (deprecated) 
0x0005    FIT Tail Community      IFITv6    No 
0x0006    Link Bandwidth          LBW       No        
0x0008    Unassigned                    
0x0009    Unassigned 
0x000A    Unassigned  
0x000B    VRF Route Import        VRP-I     No
0x000C    FS Redirect to IPv6     RDIPv6C   Yes: RDIP
0x000D    FS Redirect to IPv6     RDIPv6    Yes: RFC8956 
0x000E    Unassigned 
Ox000F    Unassigned 
0x0010    Cisco VPN distinguisher Cisco-VPN  No 
0x0011    UUID-based Route Target UUID-RT    No
0x0012    Inter-ARea P2MP S-NH    PM2P-NH    No 
0x0013    Unassigned 
0x0014    VRF Recursive NH        VRF-RNH    no 
0x0015    RT-derived-EC           RT-EC      no 
   
</artwork>
</figure>
</t>
<t> References: 
<dl>
<dt>RDIP: </dt><dd><xref target="I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip"></xref> </dd>
<dt>RFC8956: </dt><dd><xref target="RFC8955"></xref></dd>
</dl>
</t>
</section> 
<section title="Conflicts between FSv2 actions inherited from FSv1 Actions">
<section title="Redirection FS-EC and IPv6 FS-EC Conflicts ">
<t>
The following FS defines redirection functions in Transitive EC 
<dl>
<dt><xref target="RFC8955"></xref> </dt><dd>defines redirection to VRF (denoted at RDIP). The 
copy function is done as a second FS-EC. </dd>
<dt><xref target="RFC8956"></xref>  </dt><dd>defines redirection to VRF (denoted as RDIPv6). the
copy function is done as a second FS-EC </dd>
<dt> <xref target="I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip"></xref>: </dt> <dd>
defines a copy funtion is defined to be part of the same function
based on a C-Flag where if C=0 redirect the base packet, and
if C=1 the redirect applies to copies. This function is defined for IPv4 
forms and IPv6 forms.</dd> 
<dt> <xref target="I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect"></xref>: </dt><dd>
The Generalized redirect redirects generalized ID whose function is identified 
by the ID-Type field. A copy flag has the same function as the 
<xref target="I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip"></xref>.  The final flag Field
is a 4 byte field specifying a sequence number for ordering of multiple 
global indirection FS-EC. This sequence number does not apply to other 
forms of redirect. </dd>
<dt><xref target="I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-interfaceset"></xref>: </dt><dd>
defines a group of interface upon which the flow specification rules 
(filters and actions) are to be applied. This interactions with 
all redirect functions. </dd> 
</dl>
</t>
<t>Redirect is a major function for FS-EC and the redirect functions have 
a potential to interact with unexpected results - if the order switches. 
FSv2-EC use a deterministic order.  The Action Chain Order (ACO) FSv2-EC 
provides a means for the originator and propagator to signal if the 
order is implementation specific (that is set by configuration knob) or 
if FSv2-EC order. 
</t> 
</section>
<section title="FSv1-EC conflicts in transmission Rate limits and marking">
<t>Besides redirect conflicts, FSv1 has conflicts between the transmission 
rate limit (bytes versus packet) and FSv1 directed at a single interface group. 
<figure>
<artwork>  
                  Table 3-6
  Conflicts between FSv2 Transitive Generic IPv4 actions 
		
H-L byte 
Value    Description                   Name    Potential Conflicts
=======  ======================        ======  ==================== 
0x07-02  FS for Interface Group        TAIS    TRB, TA, TM, TRP
0x80-06  Traffic rate limit by bytes   TRB     TRP
0x80-07  Traffic Action                TA      redirect, TAIS
0x80-09  Traffic mark DSCP             TM      TAIS
0x80-0C  Traffic rate limit by packets TRP     TRB 

Ridirect FSv1-EC include: RDIP, RDv6, RDIPv4, RDIPv6, and RGID/
</artwork>
</figure>
</t> 
<t>Key for table 
<dl> 
<dt>TAIS: </dt><dd> FSV1 Traffic actions (copy, sample, drop, and terminal (stop processing)) <xref target="RFC8955"></xref></dd>   
<dt>TRB: </dt><dd> Traffic rate (limit) by bytes <xref target="RFC8955"></xref> </dd>
<dt>TA: </dt><dd> Traffic action (sample or copy) <xref target="RFC8955"></xref> </dd>
<dt>TRP: </dt><dd> FSV1 traffic rate (limit) by packet <xref target="RFC8955"></xref> </dd> 
<dt>RDIP: </dt><dd> FSv1 rt-redirect <xref target="RFC8955"></xref> </dd>
<dt>RDv6: </dt><dd> FSv1 rt-direct <xref target="RFC8956"></xref> </dd> 
<dt>RDIPv4: </dt><dd> Redirect IP (direct or copy) <xref target="I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip"></xref> </dd>
<dt>RDIPv6: </dt><dd>  Redirect IPv6 (direct or copy) <xref target="I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip"></xref> </dd>
<dt>RGID: </dt><dd> Redirect to Generalized ID (direct or copy)  <xref target="I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect"></xref>  </dd>
<dt>TMDS: </dt><dd>  Flow spec Remark DSCP <xref target="RFC8955"></xref></dd> 
</dl>
</t> 
</section> 
</section> 
<section title="Default Ordering for FSv2 Extended Community Actions ">
<t>
One of the issue that started the FSv2 work was
the fact that actions interacted. These interactions 
might occur when both actions performed their duties which 
caused conflicting results. One example of a potentially
unexpected interaction is when the FSv2 for rate limiting by packet (TRP)
combines with the FSv2-EC action for rate limiting by byte (TRB). 
</t>
<t>
<figure>
<artwork>
 
               Table 3-7  
Default order for Processing Transitive IPv4 FSv2-EC Communities 
      High-Low byte of Transitive FS-EC 
 
#   H-L      FSv1 Description               Name     FS document
== ========  =============================  =======  ========== 
 1 0x80-xx   Action Chain ordering          ACO      [this document]
 2 0x80-06   Traffic rate limit by bytes    TRB      RFC8955
 3 0x80-07   Traffic Action                 TA       RFC8955
             (sample, terminal)   
 4 0x80-08   Redirection to VRF (2 AS form) RDIP     RFC8955
 5 0x80-09   Traffic mark DSCP              TM       RFC8955
 6 0x80-0C   Traffic rate limit by packets  TRP      RFC8955 
 7 0x81-08   Redirect to VPN (IPv4 form)    RDIP     RFC8955
 8 0x81-08   Redirect to VPN (4 AS form)    RDIP     RFC8955 

 9 0x01-0C   Transitive IPv4                RDIPv4   RDIP   
10 0x07-02   FSv1 for an Interface set      TAIS     ifset                       
11 0x09-xx   Redirect to Indirection ID     RGID     RGID  
12 0x0b-00   SFC Reserved                   SFC-R    RFC9015 
13 0x0b-01   SFVC SFIR POOL Identifier      SFIR-PI  RFC9015 
14 0x0b-02   SFC MPLS label stack Swapping  SFC-MPLS RFC9015 
             or stacking labels
</artwork>
</figure>
</t>
<t> References: 
<dl>
<dt>ifset: </dt><dd> <xref target="I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-interfaceset"></xref> </dd>
<dt>RDIP: </dt><dd><xref target="I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip"></xref> </dd>
<dt>RGID: </dt><dd><xref target="I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect"></xref>  </dd>
<dt>RFC9015:</dt><dd><xref target="RFC9015"></xref> </dd>
<dt>RFC8955: </dt><dd><xref target="RFC8955"></xref></dd>
</dl>
</t>
<t>
<figure>
<artwork>
                  Table 3-8 
Default Order Transitive IPv6-Address-Specific Extended Communities  
 
#     H-type  FSv2 Description     Name    FS document
====  ======  ==================   =======  ==========    
1-14          All IPv4 FS-EC       (see table 3-7) 
15    0x000C  Redirect to IPv6     RDIPv6C   RDIP
16    0x000D  Redirect to IPv6     RDIPv6   [RFC8956] 

The IPv6 redirect functions are ordered after all 
FSv2-EC for IPv4. 
</artwork>
</figure>
</t>
<t> References: 
<dl>
<dt>RDIP: </dt><dd><xref target="I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip"></xref> </dd>
<dt>RFC8956: </dt><dd><xref target="RFC8955"></xref></dd>
</dl>
</t>        
</section> 
<section title="Action Chain Ordering FSv2 Extended Community (ACO FSv2-EC)"> 
<t>
<dl>
<dt>Summary: </dt><dd> Action Chain Ordering sets the default order dependency and failure 
mode within the chain of actions engaged by a filter match. </dd>
<dt>Description: </dt> <dd> 
One of the issues with FSv1 is the lack of a clear definition 
on what happens if multiple actions interact. Two types of 
interactions cn occur.
<dl>
<dt>Two conflicting actions on traffic flow </dt> <dd> If two actions 
modify a single packet or a traffic flow,  the order the action operate may be important.  
A deterministic order of action processing allows an implementation to 
be able to count on which actions occur first.  The previous section
of this document set default ordering for FSv2-EC so that implementation 
can count on which actions (if multiple actions are present), is enacted first. 
FSv1 implementation today provide their own ordering of FSv1 Actions. 
In order to provide a migration path, the Action Chain Ordering (ACO) FSv2-EC 
ACO-Dependency flags indicate if an implementation is using proprietary 
intstead of FSv2 default ordering. 
</dd>
<dt> A second way an FSv2 action can interact is if the first action fails. </dt>
<dd> For example, if the first action was copy (via a mirror action)
and the second action is the packet.  If the first action fails, 
should the second action still occur?  The correct answer 
depends on the FSv2 application. If the order of the 
two actions is drop the packet and then mirror, the mirror function 
would not copy any packets. The Action Chain Ordering (FSV2-EC) 
AC-Failure value specifies what occurs when an action failes. 
</dd>
</dl>
</dd>
<dt>Encoding:</dt> <dd>The Generic Transitive encoding is shown in 
figure 3-11 with the field definitions below.  
</dd>
</dl>
</t>
<t>
 <figure>
 <artwork>
 Generic Transitive Extended Community (IPv4)
 
   0                   1                   2                   3
  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |  Type high    |  Type low     |ACO-dependency |  AC-Failure   |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |         AC-Failure value  (4 octets)                          |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 
                  Figure 3-11 
 </artwork> 
  </figure> 
  </t>
 <t>where: 
  <dl>
  <dt>Type high: </dt><dd> This 1 octet field has a value of 0x80 For
  the Generic Transitive EC. </dd>
  <dt>Type low: </dt><dd> This one octet field identifies the ACO-Action. 
  The value is TBD4. </dd> 
 <dt>ACO Dependency </dt> <dd>This field indicates whether the FS-EC order is 
 either the pre-defined order or an implementation specific order. 
  <dl>
  <dt>0 = default order and interaction. </dt><dd>For FSv2-EC this means a pre-defined order 
  and inter-dependency. </dd>
  <dt>1 = Implementation specific order and interaction. </dt><dd>The implementation 
  specific order is outside the scope of this document</dd>
  </dl>
 </dd> 
 <dt>AC-failure-type – </dt><dd> 1 octet byte that determines the action on failure.  
 Actions may succeed or fail and an Action chain must deal with it.  
 The default value stored for an action chain that does not have this action chain is “stop on failure”.
  <dl> 
  <dt>where AC-Failure types are </dt><dd> 
     <dl>  
     <dt>0x00 – </dt><dd>stop on failure </dd>
     <dt>0x01 – </dt><dd>continue on failure (best effort on actions)</dd>
     <dt>0x02 – </dt><dd> conditional stop on failure depending on AC-Failure value. </dd>  
     <dt>0x03 – </dt><dd> rollback. This means do all action or no actions depending in AC-Failure value </dd> 
     </dl> 
   </dd>
  </dl>  
 </dd>
 <dt> AC-Failure value - </dt><dd>For the ACO functionality defined in this specification are the following
   <dl>
   <dt>Default value (0, 0x00000000) - </dt><dd> Default value for conditional stop is to stop on failures.
   Default value for rollback is to "do no actions".  </dd>
  <dt>All other values - </dt><dd> All other values are outside the scope of this specification. </dd>
  </dl>
 </dd>
 </dl>
</t> 
</section>
</section> 
</section> 
<section title="Validation and Ordering of NLRI">
<section title="Validation of FSv2 NLRI ">
<t>The validation of FSv2 NLRI adheres to the combination of rules for general 
BGP FSv1 NLRI found in <xref target="RFC8955"></xref>, <xref target="RFC8956"></xref>,
<xref target="RFC9117"></xref>, and the specific 
additions made for SFC NLRI <xref target="RFC9015"></xref>, and L2VPN NLRI 
<xref target="I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-l2vpn"></xref>.
</t>
<t>To provide clarity, the full validation process for flow specification 
routes (FSv1 or FSv2) is described in this section rather 
than simply referring to the relevant portions of these RFCs.  
Validation only occurs after BGP UPDATE message reception and 
the FSv2 NLRI and the path attributes relating to FSv2 (Extended
community and Wide Community) have been determined to be well-formed.  Any 
MALFORMED FSv2 NRLI is handled as a “TREAT as WITHDRAW” <xref target="RFC7606"></xref>. 
</t>
<section title="Validation of FS NLRI (FSv1 or FSv2)">
<t>
Flow specifications received from a BGP peer that are accepted in the
respective Adj-RIB-In are used as input to the route selection process.
Although the forwarding attributes of the two routes for tbe same prefix may be 
the same, BGP is still required to perform its path selection algorithm in 
order to select the correct set of attributes to advertise. 
</t>
<t>The first step of the BGP Route selection procedure (section 9.1.2 of 
<xref target="RFC4271"></xref> is to exclude from the selection procedure routes that are 
considered unfeasible. In the context of IP routing information, this 
is used to validate that the NEXT_HOP Attribute of a given route is 
 resolvable.  
 </t>
<t>The concept can be extended in the case of the Flow Specification NLRI to allow other validation procedures. 
</t>
<t>The FSv2 validation process validates the FSv2 NLRI with following unicast 
routes received over the same AFI (1 or 2) but different SAFIs:
<dl>
<dt>FSv2 received over SAFI=TBD1</dt>
<dd> FSv1 received over SAFI=133 are be validated against SAFI=1.  Similarly, FSv2 routes 
received over SAFI=TBD1 will be validated against SAFI=1. </dd>
<dt>FSv2 received over SAFI=TBD2 </dt>
<dd>FSv1 received over SAFI=134 are validated against SAFI=128, and 
FSv2 received over SAFI=TBD2 will be validated against SAFI=128. </dd>
<dt>FSv2 received with AFI = 31 </dt> <dd> The FSV2 routes received with
 (AFI=31, SAFI=TBD1) will be validated against SAFI=1.
 The FSv2 received with (AFI=31, SAFI=TBD2) will be validated against SAFI=128. </dd>
<dt>FSv2 L2 routes passed in (AFI=6, SAFI=TBD1) and L2VPN routes passed in (AFI=25, SAFI=TBD2). </dt>
<dd> <dl> 
<dt>FSv2 L2 routes - </dt> <dd> validate (AFI=6, SAFI=TBD1) against (AFI=1, SAFI=1). </dd>
<dt>FSv2 L2VPN routes - </dt> <dd> validate (AFI=256, SAFI=TBD2) against (AFI=1, SAFI=128></dd>
<dt>This is similar to FSv1. -  </dt><dd> The FSv1 L2 validated L2 routes passed in (AFI=6, SAFI=133) against (AFI=1, SAFI=1) 
and the L2VPN routes (AFI=25, SAFI=134) are validated against (AFI=1, SAFI=128). </dd>
</dl> </dd>
</dl>
</t>
<t>In the absence of explicit configuration, a Flow specification NLRI (FSv1 or FSv2) 
MUST be validated such that it is considered feasible if and only if 
all of the conditions are true:
<list>
<t>a) A destination prefix component is embedded in the Flow Specification, </t>
<t>b) One of the following conditions holds true:
<list>
<t> 1.	The originator of the Flow Specification 
matches the originator of the best-match unicast route for the destination prefix 
embedded in the flow specification (this is the unicast route 
with the longest possible prefix length covering the destination 
prefix embedded in the flow specification).
</t>
<t>2.	The AS_PATH attribute of the flow specification is empty or 
contains only an AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE segment <xref target="RFC5065"></xref>.
<list>
<t>2a.This condition should be enabled by default. </t>
<t>2b.This condition may be disabled by explicit configuration on a BGP Speaker, </t>
<t>2c.As an extension to this rule, a given non-empty AS_PATH 
(besides AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE segments) MAY be permitted by policy].</t>
</list> 
</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>c)	There are no “more-specific” unicast routes when compared 
with the flow destination prefix that have been received from a different 
neighbor AS than the best-match unicast route, which has been 
determined in rule b. 
</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>However, part of rule a may be relaxed by explicit configuration, permitting Flow 
Specifications that include no destination prefix component.  If such is the 
case, rules b and c are moot and MUST be disregarded. 
</t>
<t>By “originator” of a BGP route, we mean either the address of the originator 
in the ORIGINATOR_ID Attribute <xref target="RFC4456"></xref> or the source address of the BGP
peer, if this path attribute is not present.  
</t>
<t>A BGP implementation MUST enforce that the AS in the left-most position of the 
AS_PATH attribute of a Flow Specification Route (FSv1 or FSv2) received via 
the Exterior Border Gateway Protocol (eBGP) matches the AS in the left-most
position of the AS_PATH attribute of the best-match unicast route for the 
destination prefix embedded in the Flow Specification (FSv1 or FSv2) NLRI. 
</t>
<t>The best-match unicast route may change over time independently of the Flow 
Specification NLRI (FSv1 or FSv2). Therefore, a revalidation of the Flow 
Specification MUST be performed whenever unicast routes change.  
Revalidation is defined as retesting rules a to c as described above. 
</t>
</section>
<section title="Validation of Flow Specification Actions for IP Basic">
<t> FSv2 may be mapped to actions using Extended Communities for the 
IP Basic Functionality. The ordering of precedence for these actions 
in the precedence of the FSv2 NLRI action TLV values (lowest to highest). 
</t>
<t>
Actions may conflict, duplicate, or complement other actions. An 
example of conflict is the packet rate limiting by byte and by packet.
An example of a duplicate is the request to copy or sample a packet under
one of the redirect functions.  This document defines the potential conflicts 
or duplications for existing FSv1 actions.  
</t>
<t>
Specifications for new FSv2 actions outside of this specification MUST
specify interactions or conflicts with any existing FSv2 actions  
</t>
<t>Well-formed syntactically correct actions defined in Extended Communities 
are linked to the filtering rules defined in the NLRI in UPDATE packet.  
Multiple syntactically correct FSv2 actions from Extended Communities can 
be linked to one filter rule.  These actions will occur in the default 
FSv2 order if the ACO Extended Community with the "implementation specific"
indicator is not attached.  
</t> 
<t>
If one action in the ordered list fails, the default FSv2 procedure is 
for the action process for this rule to stop and flag the error via system management.  
The action chain may continue if one of two things exist:
<list>
<t>a) ACO community is attached to the FSv2 filter with an AC-Failure type of 
"continue on failure (0x01), or
</t>
<t>b) local configuration that indicates a FSV2 action should continue 
after errors. 
</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>Implementations MAY wish to log the actions taken by FS actions (FSv1 or FSv2).    
</t>
</section>
<section title="Error handling and Validation">
<t>The following two error handling rules must be followed by 
all BGP speakers which support FSv2:
<list style="symbols">
<t>FSv2 NLRI having TLVs which do not have the correct lengths or syntax must be considered MALFORMED.  
</t>
<t>FSv2 NLRIs having TLVs which do not follow the above ordering rules described in 
section 4.1 MUST be considered as malformed by a BGP FSv2 propagator.
</t>
</list>
The above two rules prevent any ambiguity that arises from the multiple copies of 
the same NLRI from multiple BGP FSv2 propagators. 
</t>
<t>A BGP implementation SHOULD treat such malformed NLRIs as ‘Treat-as-withdraw’ 
<xref target="RFC7606"></xref>  
</t>
<t>
An implementation for a BGP speaker supporting both FSv1 and FSv2 MUST 
support the error handling for both FSv1 and FSv2. 
</t>
</section>
</section>
<section title="Ordering for FSv2 Filters and Actions ">
<t>Flow Specification v2 allows the user to order flow specification rules and 
the actions associated with a rule. Each FSv2 rule has one or more match 
conditions and one or more actions associated with that match condition. 
</t>
<t>This section describes how to order FSv2 filters received from a peer prior 
to transmission to another peer. The same ordering should be used for the 
ordering of forwarding filtering installed based on only FSv2 filters.  
</t>
<t>Section x.x describes how a BGP peer that supports FSv1 and FSv2 should
order the flow specification filters during the installation of these flow  
specification filters into FIBs or firewall engines in routers. 
</t>
<t>The BGP distribution of FSv1 NLRI and FSv2 NLRI and their associated path 
attributes for actions (Wide Communities and Extended Communities) is 
“ships-in-the-night” forwarding of different AFI/SAFI information. This 
recommended ordering provides for deterministic ordering of filters sent by 
the BGP distribution. 
</t>
<section title="Ordering of FSv2 NLRI Filters  ">
<t>The basic principles regarding ordering of rules are simple: 
<list>
<t>1) Rule-0 (zero) is defined to be 0/0 with the “permit-all” action 
<list>
<t>BGP peers which do not support flow specification permit traffic for 
routes received.  Rule-0 is defined to be “permit-all” for 0/0 which 
is the normal case for filtering for routes received by BGP. 
</t>
<t>By configuration option, the “permit-all” may be set to “deny-all” if 
traffic rules on routers used as BGP must have a “route” AND a 
firewall filter to allow traffic flow.
</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>2) FSv2 rules are ordered based on the user-defined order numbers 
specified in the FSv2 NLRI (rules 1-n).  </t>
<t>3) If multiple FSv2 NLRI have the same user-defined order, then the filters are 
ordered by type of FSv2 NRLI filters (see Table 1, section 4) with 
lowest numerical number have the best precedence. 
<list>
<t>For the same user-defined order and the same value for the FSv2 
filters type, then the filters are ordered by FSv2 the component type 
for that FSv2 filter type (see Tables 3-6) with the lowest number 
having the best precedence.  
</t>
<t>For the same user-defined order, the same value of FSv2 Filter Type, 
and the same value for the component type, then the filters are 
ordered by value within the component type.  Each component type 
defines value ordering. 
</t>
<t>For component types inherited from the FSv1 component types, there are 
the following two types of comparisons: 
<list>
<t>FSv1 component value comparison for the IP prefix values, 
compares the length of the two prefixes.  If the length is 
different, the longer prefix has precedence.  If the length is 
the same, the lower IP number has precedence. 
</t>
<t>For all other FSv1 component types, unless specified, the 
component data is compared using the memcmp() function defined 
by [ISO_IEC_9899].  For strings with the same length, the lowest 
string memcmp() value has precedence. For strings of different 
lengths, the common prefix is compared. If the common string 
prefix is not equal, then the string with the lowest string 
prefix has higher precedence.  If the common prefix is equal,
the longest string is considered to have higher precedence 
</t>
</list>
</t>
</list>
</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>Notes:
<list style="symbols">
<t>Since the user can define rules that re-order these value comparisons, 
this order is arbitrary and set to provide a deterministic default. 
</t>
</list>
</t>
</section>
<section title="Ordering of the Actions for IP Basic ">
<t>The FSv2 specification for IP Basic only allows for 
Extended Community actions. Ordering of Actions associated with 
an IP Basic filter is based on the Action type value (low byte) of the 
Extended Community.  The action type values are listed in 
ascending numerical order in Table 3-11 for IPv4 and Table 3-12 for 
IPv6. Action type zero (0x00) is not valid. 
</t>
<t>
The mixture of Extended Community action types and action 
types associated with a Community path attribute is outside 
the scope of this document. 
</t> 
</section>
</section>
<section title="Ordering of FS filters for BGP Peers which support FSv1 and FSv2">
<t>
FSv2 allows the user to order flow specification rules and the actions 
associated with a rule. Each FSv2 rule has one or more match conditions and 
one or more actions associated with each rule. 
</t>
<t>FSv1 and FSv2 filters are sent as different AFI/SAFI pairs so 
FSv1 and FSv2 operate as ships-in-the-night.  Some BGP peers 
in an AS may support both FSv1 and FSv2.  Other BGP peers may support
FSv1 or FSv2.  Some BGP will not support FSv1 or FSV2.  A coherent 
flow specification technology must have consistent best practices
for ordering the FSv1 and FSv2 filter rules. 
</t>
<t>One simple rule captures the best practice:  Order the FSv1 filters after
the FSv2 filter by placing the FSv1 filters after the FSv2 filters.  
</t>
<t>To operationally make this work, all flow specification filters should be 
included the same data base with the FSv1 filters being assigned a user-
defined order beyond the normal size of FSv2 user-ordered values. 
A few examples, may help to illustrate this best practice. 
</t>
<t>Example 1: User ordered numbering - 
Suppose you might have 1,000 rules for the FSv2 filters.  Assign all the 
FSv1 user defined rules to 1,001 (or better yet 2,000).  The FSv1 rules 
will be ordered by the components and component values. 
</t>
<t>
Example 2: Storage of actions - 
All FSv1 actions are defined ordered actions in FSv2.  Translate your FSv1 
actions into FSv2 ordered actions for storing in a common FSv1-FSv2 flow 
specification data base. 
</t>
</section>
</section> 
<section title="Scalability and Aspirations for FSv2">
<t>Operational issues drive the deployment of BGP flow specification as a quick 
and scalable way to distribute filters.  The early operations accepted the 
fact validation of the distribution of filter needed to be done outside of 
the BGP distribution mechanism.  Other mechanisms (NETCONF/RESTCONF or PCEP) 
have reply-request protocols.  
</t>
<t>These features within BGP have not changed. BGP still does not have an 
action-reply feature. 
</t>
<t>NETCONF/RESTCONF latest enhancements provide action/response features which 
scale.  The combination of a quick distribution of filters via BGP and a 
long-term action in NETCONF/RESTCONF that ask for reporting of the
installation of FSv2 filters may provide the best scalability.  
</t>
<t>The combination of NETCONF/RESTCONF network management protocols and BGP focuses each 
protocol on the strengths of scalability.  
</t>
<t>FSv2 will be deployed in webs of BGP peers which have some BGP peers passing 
FSv1, some BGP peers passing FSv2, some BGP peers passing FSv1 and FSv2, and 
some BGP peers not passing any routes. 
</t>
<t>The TLV encoding and deterministic behaviors of FSv2 will not deprecate the 
need for careful design of the distribution of flow specification filters in 
this mixed environment.  The needs of networks for flow specification are 
different depending on the network topology and the deployment technology 
for BGP peers sending flow specification.  
</t>
<t>Suppose we have a centralized RR connected to DDoS processing sending out 
flow specification to a second tier of RR who distribute the information to 
targeted nodes. This type of distribution has one set of needs for FSv2 and 
the transition from FSv1 to FSv2
</t>
<t>Suppose we have Data Center with a 3-tier backbone trying to distribute DDoS 
or other filters from the spine to combinational nodes, to the leaf BGP 
nodes.  The BGP peers may use RR or normal BGP distribution. This deployment
has another set of needs for FSv2 and the transition from FSv1 to FSV2. 
</t>
<t>Suppose we have a corporate network with a few AS sending DDoS filters using 
basic BGP from a variety of sites. Perhaps the corporate network will be 
satisfied with FSv1 for a long time. 
</t> 
<t>These examples are given to indicate that BGP FSv2, like so many BGP 
protocols, needs to be carefully tuned to aid the mitigation services within 
the network. This protocol suite starts the migration toward better tools 
using FSv2, but it does not end it.  With FSv2 TLVs and deterministic 
actions, new operational mechanisms can start to be understood and utilized.  
</t>
<t>This FSv2 specification is merely the start of a revolution of work – not the end. 
</t>
</section>
<section title="Optional Security Additions">
<t>This section discusses the optional BGP Security additions for BGP-FS v2
relating to BGPSEC <xref target="RFC8205"></xref> and ROA <xref target="RFC9582"></xref>. 
</t> 
 <section title="BGP FSv2 and BGPSEC">
 <t> Flow specification v1 (<xref target="RFC8955"></xref> and <xref target="RFC8956"></xref>)
do not comment on how BGP Flow specifications to be passed BGPSEC <xref target="RFC8205"></xref>
  BGP Flow Specification v2 can be passed in BGPSEC, but it is not required. 
  </t>
  <t>FSv1 and FSv2 may be sent via BGPSEC. 
  </t>
</section>
  <section title="BGP FSv2 with ROA">
  <t>
  BGP FSv2 can utilize ROAs in the validation. If BGP FSv2 is 
  used with BGPSEC and ROA, the first thing is to validate the 
  route within BGPSEC and second to utilize BGP ROA to validate
  the route origin. 
  </t>
  <t> The BGP-FS peers using both ROA and BGP-FS validation 
  determine that a BGP Flow specification is valid
  if and only if one of the following cases: 
  <list style="symbols">
  <t>If the BGP Flow Specification NLRI has a IPv4 or 
  IPv6 address in destination address match
  filter and the following is true:
  <list style="symbols">
  <t>A BGP ROA has been received to validate the originator, and</t>
  <t>The route is the best-match unicast route for the destination
  prefix embedded in the match filter; or </t>
  </list>
  </t>
  <t>If a BGP ROA has not been received that matches the 
  IPv4 or IPv6 destination address in the destination filter, the 
  match filter must abide by the <xref target="RFC8955"></xref> and
  <xref target="RFC8956"></xref> validation rules as follows:  
  <list>
  <t>The originator match of the flow specification matches the
  originator of the best-match unicast route for the destination
  prefix filter embedded in the flow specification", and
  </t>
  <t>No more specific unicast routes exist when compared with the 
   flow destination prefix that have been received from a different
   neighboring AS than the best-match unicast route, which has been 
   determined in step A.
   </t>
  </list>
  </t>
  </list>
  The best match is defined to be the longest-match NLRI with the highest preference. 
</t>
</section>
</section>
 <section anchor="IANA" title="IANA Considerations">
   <t>This section complies with <xref target="RFC7153"></xref>.
   </t>
   <section title="Flow Specification V2 SAFIs">
   <t> IANA is requested to assign two SAFI Values in the 
   registry at https://www.iana.org/assignments/safi-namespace 
   from the Standard Action Range as follows: 
   <figure>
   <artwork>
   
     Table 7-1 SAFIs 
	
     Value   Description      Reference
     -----   -------------    ---------------
      TBD1   BGP FSv2        [this document] 
      TBD2   BGP FSv2 VPN    [this document]

   </artwork>
   </figure>
   </t>
   </section>
   <section title="BGP Capability Code">
   <t>
   IANA is requested to assign a Capability Code from the registry at 
   https://www.iana.org/assignments/capability-codes/ from the IETF Review
   range as follows:
    <figure>
   <artwork>     
   Table 7-2 - Capability Code 
   
   Value   Description            Reference       Controller
   -----  ---------------------  ---------------  ----------
    TBD3  Flow Specification V2  [this document]  IETF
  </artwork>
   </figure>
   </t>
   </section>
   <section title="Generic Transitive Extended Community">
   <t>
   IANA is requested to assign a type value from the "Generic Transitive Extended Community 
   Sub-Types" registry at 
   https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-extended-communities/bgp-extended-communities.xhtml  
    <figure>
   <artwork>     
   Table 7-3 - Generic Transitive Extended Community 
   
   Value   Description                Reference       Controller
   -----  --------------------------  ---------------  ----------
    TBD4  FSv2 Action Chain Ordering  [this document]  IETF
	
   The requested value is "0x01".  
  </artwork>
   </figure>
   </t>
   </section>
   <section title="FSv2 IP Filters Component Types">
   <t>IANA is requested to create a new "BGP FSv2 Component Types" 
   registry and indicate [this draft] as a reference. 
   The following assignments in the FSv2 IP Filters Component Types 
   Registry shold be made.  
   </t>
   <t>
   <figure>
   <artwork>
   Table 7-5 - Flow Specification 

   Registry Name: BGP FSv2 Component Types 
   Reference: [this document]
   Registration Procedures: 0x01-0x3FFF Standards Action. 
 
   Value  Description         Reference        
   -----  ------------------- ------------------------
    1     Destination filter  [RFC8955][RFC8956][this document] 
    2     Source Prefix       [RFC8955][RFC8956][this document] 
    3     IP Protocol         [RFC8955][RFC8956][this document] 
    4     Port                [RFC8955][RFC8956][this document]   
    5     Destination Port    [RFC8955][RFC8956][this document] 
    6     Source Port         [RFC8955][RFC8956][this document] 
    7     ICMP Type [v4 or v6][RFC8955][RFC8956][this document] 
    8     ICMP Code [v4 or v6][RFC8955][RFC8956][this document] 
    9     TCP Flags [v4]      [RFC8955][RFC8956][this document] 
   10     Packet Length       [RFC8955][RFC8956][this document] 
   11     DSCP marking        [RFC8955][RFC8956][this document] 
   12     Fragment            [RFC8955][RFC8956][this document] 
   13     Flow Label          [RFC8956][this document] 
   </artwork>
   </figure>
   </t>
   </section>
   <section title="FSV2 NLRI TLV Types ">
   <t>IANA is requested to create the a new registries 
      on a new "Flow Specification v2 TLV Types” web page.  
   </t>
   <t>
   <figure>
   <artwork>
   Table 7-6 FSv2 TLV types 
    
   Registry Name: BGP FSv2 TLV types 
   Reference: [this document]
   Registration Procedures: 0x01-0x3FFF Standards Action.

    Type          Description              Reference
    ----          ----------------------   ------------
    0x00          Reserved                 [this document]
    0x01          IP traffic rules         [this document]
    0x02          Extended IP Rules        [this document]
    0x03          MPLS Traffic Rules       [this document]
    0x04          L2 Traffic rules         [this document] 
    0x05          SFC Traffic rules        [this document] 
    0x06          Tunneled traffic rules   [this document] 
    0x08-0x3FFF   Unassigned               [this document]
    0x4000-0x7FFF Vendor specific          [this document]
    0x8000-0xFFFF Reserved                 [this document]

   </artwork>
   </figure>
   </t>
   </section> 
 </section>
 <section title="Security Considerations">
   <t>The use of ROA improves on <xref target="RFC8955"></xref>
   by checking to see of the route origination. This check can improve the 
   validation sequence for a multiple-AS environment.  
   </t>
   <t>>The use of BGPSEC  <xref target="RFC8205"></xref> to secure the packet
   can increase security of BGP flow specification information sent in the packet.  
   </t>
   <t>The use of the reduced validation within an AS <xref target="RFC9117"></xref>
   can provide adequate validation for distribution of flow specification within a single 
   autonomous system for prevention of DDoS. 
   </t>
   <t>Distribution of flow filters may provide insight into traffic being sent within 
   an AS, but this information should be composite information that does not reveal the
   traffic patterns of individuals. 
   </t>
</section>
</middle>
<back>
    <references title="Normative References">
	  &RFC0791;
      &RFC2119;
      &RFC4271;
	  &RFC4360;
	  &RFC4456;
	  &RFC4760;
	  &RFC5065;
	  &RFC5701;
	  &RFC7153;
	  &RFC7606;
	  &RFC8174;
	  &RFC8955;
	  &RFC8956;
	  &RFC9015;
	  &RFC9117;
	  &RFC9184;
	  &RFC9582;
	  &I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-l2vpn;
	  &I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-nvo3;
	  &I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-srv6;
	  &I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-interfaceset;
	  &I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip;
	  &I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect;
	  &I-D.hares-idr-bgp-community-attribute;
	</references>
	<references title="Informative References">
	&RFC6241; 
	&RFC8040;
	&RFC8205;
	&RFC8206;
	&I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-v2;
	 </references>
  </back>
</rfc>