



IDR Working Group                                                J. Haas
Internet-Draft                                                       HPE
Intended status: Standards Track                           W. Henderickx
Expires: 18 November 2026                                     A. Simpson
                                                                   Nokia
                                                             17 May 2026


                  BGP Flow-Spec Redirect-to-IP Action
                 draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip-12

Abstract

   Flow-spec is an extension to BGP that allows for the dissemination of
   traffic flow specification rules.  This has many possible
   applications, but the primary one for many network operators is the
   distribution of traffic filtering actions for distributed denial of
   service (DDoS) mitigation.  The flow-spec standard, RFC 8955, defines
   a redirect-to-VRF action for policy-based forwarding.  This mechanism
   can be difficult to use, particularly in networks without L3 VPN
   infrastructure.

   This document defines a new redirect-to-IP flow-spec action that
   provides a simpler method of policy-based forwarding.  The details of
   the action, including the IPv4 or IPv6 target address, are encoded in
   newly defined BGP extended communities.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on 18 November 2026.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2026 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.



Haas, et al.            Expires 18 November 2026                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft     draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip          May 2026


   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
   license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.  Code Components
   extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Redirect-to-IP Extended Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Validation Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       2.1.1.  Redirect-to-IP Extended Community Validation
               Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.2.  Redirecting Matching Flowspec Traffic . . . . . . . . . .   6
       2.2.1.  Interactions with Redirect to VRF Extended
               Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       2.2.2.  Interactions with Other Flowspec Traffic Filtering
               Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   3.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   4.  Operational Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   6.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     6.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     6.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   Appendix A.  Implementation Status  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     A.1.  HPE / Juniper Networks  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     A.2.  Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     A.3.  Arrcus  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     A.4.  Nokia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16

1.  Introduction

   BGP flow-spec [RFC8955] is an extension to BGP that allows for the
   dissemination of traffic flow specification rules.  This has many
   possible applications, but the primary one for many network operators
   is the distribution of traffic filtering actions for distributed
   denial of service (DDoS) mitigation.

   Every flow-spec route is a rule, consisting of a matching part
   encoded in the BGP Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI)
   field, and an action part encoded in one or more BGP extended



Haas, et al.            Expires 18 November 2026                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft     draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip          May 2026


   communities.  Flow-spec defines filter actions such as discard and
   rate limit.  It also defines a redirect-to-VRF action for policy-
   based forwarding.  Using the redirect-to-VRF action for redirecting
   traffic towards an alternate destination is useful for DDoS
   mitigation, but it can be complex and cumbersome, particularly in
   networks without L3 VPN infrastructure.

   This document specifies a new redirect-to-IP flow-spec action that
   provides a method for policy-based forwarding to redirect or copy
   matching traffic toward a specific IP address.  This method of
   redirection and copying is simpler than the existing methods in
   [RFC8955] and [RFC8956] to redirect traffic to a VRF.  The details of
   the action, including the IPv4 or IPv6 target address, are encoded in
   newly defined BGP extended communities.

1.1.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

2.  Redirect-to-IP Extended Communities

   This document defines two new BGP extended communities.  The extended
   communities have a type indicating they are transitive and IPv4-
   address-specific or IPv6-address-specific, depending on whether the
   redirection target address is IPv4 or IPv6.

   For the IPv4 address-specific extended community [RFC4360], the IANA-
   assigned sub-type value 0x0c indicates that the Global Administrator
   and Local Administrator fields encode a flow-spec "redirect-to-IPv4"
   action.  In the encoding of this action, the 4-octet Global
   Administrator field encodes the IPv4 unicast address that is the
   redirection target address and the 2-octet local administrator field
   is formatted as shown in Figure 1.

   For the IPv6 address-specific extended community [RFC5701], the IANA-
   assigned type 0x000c indicates that the Global Administrator and
   Local Administrator fields encode a flow-spec "redirect-to-IPv6"
   action.  In this encoding, the 16-octet Global Administrator field
   contains the IPv6 unicast address that is the redirection target
   address and the 2-octet local administrator field is again formatted
   as shown in Figure 1.






Haas, et al.            Expires 18 November 2026                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft     draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip          May 2026


                  Figure 1 : Local Administrator sub-field

                  0                   1
                  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
                 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                 |          Reserved           |C|
                 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   In the local administrator field the least-significant bit is defined
   as the "C" (or copy) bit.  When the "C" bit is set the redirection
   applies to copies of the matching packets and not to the original
   traffic stream.

   All bits other than the "C" bit in the local administrator field MUST
   be set to 0 by the originating BGP speaker and ignored by receiving
   BGP speakers.

2.1.  Validation Procedures

   Additional validation checks apply to flow-spec routes using the
   procedures defined in this document.  It MUST be possible to disable
   these additional validation checks on a per-EBGP session basis.

   The validation check described in [RFC8955] and [RFC8956], and
   revised in [RFC9117], SHOULD be applied by default to received flow-
   spec routes with a "redirect-to-IP" extended community, as it is to
   all types of flow-spec routes.  When this check is applied, a flow-
   spec route with a Destination Prefix subcomponent that originated
   outside the local AS is considered valid only if the neighbor AS
   implied in the AS_PATH attribute is the neighbor AS of the unicast IP
   route that is the best match of the destination prefix, and it is
   also the neighbor AS of all unicast IP routes that are longer matches
   of the destination prefix.

   If the flow-spec route has a non-empty AS_PATH and any AS_PATH path
   segment is of the type AS_SET or AS_CONFED_SET, then the extended
   community is considered "invalid".  Compare similarly to Section 4 of
   [RFC9774].

2.1.1.  Redirect-to-IP Extended Community Validation Procedure

   BGP speakers that support the extended communities defined in this
   document MUST also, by default, apply additional validation rules
   when receiving a flow-spec with these extended communities:







Haas, et al.            Expires 18 November 2026                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft     draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip          May 2026


   If the flow-spec route has a null/empty AS_PATH, or an AS_PATH with
   only local confederation elements, and the resolving route of the
   "target-address" is a non-BGP route, then the extended community is
   considered "valid".

   When the best-match unicast route for the "target-address" is BGP,
   the router must consider a "redirect-to-IPv4" or "redirect-to-IPv6"
   extended community to be invalid if the origin AS of the flow-spec
   route does not match the origin AS of the best-match unicast route
   for the "target-address".  For example:

   *  If the flow-spec route has a non-empty AS_PATH indicating origin
      AS = X, and the resolving route of the "target-address" is a BGP
      route with a non-empty AS_PATH indicating origin AS = X, then the
      extended community is considered "valid".

   *  If the flow-spec route has a non-empty AS_PATH indicating origin
      AS = X, and the resolving route of the "target-address" is a BGP
      route with a non-empty AS_PATH indicating origin AS that is NOT X,
      then the extended community is considered "invalid".

   *  If the flow-spec route has a null/empty AS_PATH, or an AS_PATH
      with only local confederation elements, and the resolving route of
      the "target-address" is a BGP route with a null/empty AS_PATH or
      an AS_PATH with only local confederation elements then the
      extended community is considered "valid".

   *  If the flow-spec route has a null/empty AS_PATH or an AS_PATH with
      only local confederation elements, and the resolving route of the
      "target-address" is a BGP route that originated outside the local
      AS or confederation, then the extended community is considered
      "invalid".

   *  If the flow-spec route has a non-empty AS_PATH indicating origin
      AS = X, and the resolving route of the "target-address" is a BGP
      route with a null/empty AS_PATH or an AS_PATH with only local
      confederation elements, or it is a non-BGP route then the extended
      community is considered "invalid".

   If any of the above checks determine that a "redirect-to-IP" extended
   community is invalid, the extended community SHOULD be ignored as if
   it was not present in the route.









Haas, et al.            Expires 18 November 2026                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft     draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip          May 2026


2.2.  Redirecting Matching Flowspec Traffic

   Traffic that is to be redirected/copied for a "redirect-to-IP"
   extended community SHOULD only be redirected or copied if the
   community type matches the flow-spec AFI.  IPv4 traffic uses IPv4-
   address-specific extended communities, and IPv6 traffic uses IPv6-
   address-specific extended communities.

   When a BGP speaker receives a flow-spec route with a "redirect-to-IP"
   extended community and this route represents the one and only best
   path, it installs a traffic filtering rule that matches the packets
   described by the NLRI field and redirects them (C=0) or copies them
   (C=1) towards the IPv4 or IPv6 address in the extended community's
   Global Administrator field (the "target address").  The BGP speaker
   is expected to do a longest-prefix-match lookup of the "target
   address" in the database it uses to resolve next-hop addresses and
   then forward the redirected/copied packets based on the resulting
   route (the "target route").

   If the "target route" has multiple ECMP next-hops, the redirected/
   copied packets SHOULD be load-shared across these next-hops according
   to the router's ECMP configuration.  If the "target route" has one or
   more tunnel next-hops then the appropriate encapsulations SHOULD be
   added to the redirected/copied packets.  If the "target address" is
   invalid or unreachable then the extended community MUST be ignored.

   If a BGP speaker receives a flow-spec route with multiple "redirect-
   to-IP" extended communities and this route represents the one and
   only best path, it SHOULD load-share the redirected/copied packets
   across all the "target addresses" according to its ECMP
   configuration.

   If the BGP speaker is not capable of redirecting and copying the same
   packet as part of load-sharing it SHOULD ignore the extended
   communities with C=0.  The intent is that if traffic cannot be both
   redirected and copied that there is precedence for copying for
   operational visibility.

   If the BGP speaker is not capable of redirecting/copying a packet
   towards multiple "target addresses" it SHOULD deterministically
   select one "target address" and ignore the others.

   If a BGP speaker receives multiple flow-spec routes for the same
   flow-spec NLRI and all of them are considered usable paths for the
   best route according to the BGP speaker's multipath configuration and
   each one carries one or more "redirect-to-IP" extended communities,
   the BGP speaker SHOULD load-share the redirected/copied packets
   across all the "target addresses", with the same fallback rules as



Haas, et al.            Expires 18 November 2026                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft     draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip          May 2026


   discussed in the previous paragraph.  Note that this situation does
   not require the BGP speaker to have multiple peers.  (For example,
   BGP Add-Paths [RFC7911] could be used for the flow-spec address
   family.)

2.2.1.  Interactions with Redirect to VRF Extended Community

   If a BGP speaker receives a flow-spec route with the following:

   *  One or more "redirect-to-IP" extended communities and,

   *  One or more "redirect-to-VRF" ([RFC8955], Section 7.4) extended
      communities and,

   *  This route represents the "one and only" best path,

   then the "redirect-to-IP" actions described above should be applied
   in the context of the "target VRF" matching the "redirect-to- VRF"
   extended community.  I.e., the "target addresses" should be looked up
   in the FIB of the "target VRF".

   If there are multiple "redirect-to-VRF" extended communities in the
   route, the "target VRF" SHOULD be the one that matches the "redirect-
   to-VRF" extended community with the highest numerical value treating
   the extended communities as an unsigned 64-bit number in network byte
   order.  If the BGP speaker is not capable of "redirect-to-VRF"
   followed by "redirect-to-IP" then it SHOULD give preference to
   performing the "redirect-to-VRF" action and doing only longest-
   prefix-match forwarding in the "target VRF".

   If a BGP speaker receives multiple flow-spec routes for the same
   flow-spec NLRI, and all of them are considered best and usable paths
   according to the BGP speaker's multipath configuration, and they
   carry a combination of "redirect-to-IP" and "redirect-to-VRF"
   extended communities, the BGP speaker SHOULD apply the "redirect-to-
   IP" actions in the context of the "target VRF" as described above.
   Note that this situation does not require the BGP speaker to have
   multiple peers - i.e.  BGP Add-Paths [RFC7911] could be used for the
   flow-spec address family.

2.2.2.  Interactions with Other Flowspec Traffic Filtering Actions

   Traffic redirection or copying leverages the result of the lookup
   operation in the database used to resolve next hop addresses of the
   target address carried in the redirect-to-IP Extended Communities.
   The forwarding result of this operation typically is implemented as
   an IP forwarding operation, or results in the matching traffic being
   encapsulated in a tunnel.  This operation will generally short-



Haas, et al.            Expires 18 November 2026                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft     draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip          May 2026


   circuit other traffic filtering options for the redirected or copied
   traffic.  As a result, the expected behaviors when redirect-to-IP is
   implemented and the following other traffic filtering actions are
   carried with the flowspec route are:

   Traffic Rate in bytes (Section 7.1 of [RFC8955]):
      Redirected and copied traffic are subject to the traffic policing
      mechanisms resulting from the lookup vs. the next hop database.
      This traffic filtering action is thus IGNORED for traffic that is
      redirected or copied.

   Traffic Rate in packets (Section 7.2 of [RFC8955]):
      Redirected and copied traffic are subject to the traffic policing
      mechanisms resulting from the lookup vs. the next hop database.
      This traffic filtering action is thus IGNORED for traffic that is
      redirected or copied.

   Terminal action (Section 7.3 of [RFC8955]):
      Redirection of matching traffic is considered a terminating action
      and the non-terminal action (T == 1) is IGNORED.  Copying of
      matching traffic is considered a non-terminating action and the
      terminal action bit's behavior is respected in implementations
      that support copying.

   Sampling (Section 7.3 of [RFC8955]):
      Sampling MAY be done as part of the redirection/copy.

   Traffic marking (Section 7.5 of [RFC8955]):
      Redirected and copied traffic are subject to the traffic policing
      mechanisms resulting from the lookup vs. the next hop database.
      This traffic filtering action is thus IGNORED for traffic that is
      redirected or copied.

   SFC classifier (Section 7.4 of [RFC9015]):
      Redirected and copied traffic are subject to the traffic policing
      mechanisms resulting from the lookup vs. the next hop database.
      This traffic filtering action is thus IGNORED for traffic that is
      redirected or copied.

   redirect-to-IP takes precedence over other flowspec redirection
   extended community types unless the specification of that community
   explicitly indicates a different precedence vs. the redirect-to-IP
   community type.








Haas, et al.            Expires 18 November 2026                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft     draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip          May 2026


3.  Security Considerations

   A system that originates a flow-spec route with a "redirect-to-IP"
   extended community can cause many receivers of the flow-spec route to
   send traffic to a single next-hop, overwhelming that next-hop and
   resulting in inadvertent or deliberate denial of service.  This is
   particularly a concern when the "redirect-to-IP" extended community
   is allowed to cross AS boundaries.  The validation check described in
   Section 2.1 significantly reduces this risk.

4.  Operational Considerations

   Implementations supporting the redirect-to-IP feature will redirect
   or copy traffic to a target address based interactions with
   subsystems and may do so in a dynamic manner.  These interactions
   SHOULD be made visible in management systems used by operators to
   ensure correct operations of this feature.  These interactions
   include:

   *  Routing: redirect-to-IP extended communities can change their
      validation status based on the presence or absence of routes.  The
      implementation SHOULD provide the ability to diagnose why a given
      route does or does not validate vs. the routing table.
      Implementations MAY log such validation activity, but MUST be
      prepared to rate-limit this logging based on high rates of churn
      in the routing system.

   *  Target address resolution: redirect-to-IP extended communities can
      change their installed redirection forwarding behavior based on
      the presence or absence of resolvability of the target address in
      the database used to resolve next-hop addresses on the local
      system.  The implementation SHOULD provide the ability to
      determine what the resolved target address' forwarding behavior is
      and SHOULD be able to determine this for each redirect-to-IP
      extended community attached to the flow-spec route when more than
      one such extended community is present.  Implementations MAY
      provide logging facilities for the success or failure of such
      resolution procedures for flow-spec routes, but MUST be prepared
      to rate-limit this logging based on high rates of churn in that
      database.

   *  Conflicting redirect-to-IP extended communities: Operators are
      able to configure either outright conflicting redirect-to-IP
      extended communities, or can configure such extended communities
      that an implementation is unable to process.  An example of this
      is simultaneously configuring extended communities with C=0 and
      C=1.  Implementations SHOULD bring such conflicts to the operators
      attention through logging mechanisms.



Haas, et al.            Expires 18 November 2026                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft     draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip          May 2026


5.  IANA Considerations

   IANA has allocated an extended community from the "Transitive IPv4-
   Address-Specific Extended Community Sub-Types" registry.  The Sub-
   Type value is 0x0c.  The Name is "Flow-spec Redirect-to-IPv4".  The
   Reference shall be this document.

   IANA has allocated an extended community from the "Transitive IPv6-
   Address-Specific Extended Community Types" registry.  The Type value
   is 0x000c.  The Name is "Flow-spec Redirect-to-IPv6".  The Reference
   shall be this document.

6.  References

6.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC4360]  Sangli, S., Tappan, D., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP Extended
              Communities Attribute", RFC 4360, DOI 10.17487/RFC4360,
              February 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4360>.

   [RFC5701]  Rekhter, Y., "IPv6 Address Specific BGP Extended Community
              Attribute", RFC 5701, DOI 10.17487/RFC5701, November 2009,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5701>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

   [RFC8955]  Loibl, C., Hares, S., Raszuk, R., McPherson, D., and M.
              Bacher, "Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules",
              RFC 8955, DOI 10.17487/RFC8955, December 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8955>.

   [RFC8956]  Loibl, C., Ed., Raszuk, R., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed.,
              "Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules for IPv6",
              RFC 8956, DOI 10.17487/RFC8956, December 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8956>.

   [RFC9015]  Farrel, A., Drake, J., Rosen, E., Uttaro, J., and L.
              Jalil, "BGP Control Plane for the Network Service Header
              in Service Function Chaining", RFC 9015,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9015, June 2021,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9015>.



Haas, et al.            Expires 18 November 2026               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft     draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip          May 2026


   [RFC9117]  Uttaro, J., Alcaide, J., Filsfils, C., Smith, D., and P.
              Mohapatra, "Revised Validation Procedure for BGP Flow
              Specifications", RFC 9117, DOI 10.17487/RFC9117, August
              2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9117>.

   [RFC9774]  Kumari, W., Sriram, K., Hannachi, L., and J. Haas,
              "Deprecation of AS_SET and AS_CONFED_SET in BGP",
              RFC 9774, DOI 10.17487/RFC9774, May 2025,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9774>.

6.2.  Informative References

   [RFC7911]  Walton, D., Retana, A., Chen, E., and J. Scudder,
              "Advertisement of Multiple Paths in BGP", RFC 7911,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7911, July 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7911>.

   [RFC7942]  Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
              Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205,
              RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>.

Appendix A.  Implementation Status

   Note to the RFC Editor: This section may be removed upon publication
   as an RFC.

   This section documents the [RFC7942] implementation status of this
   document.

A.1.  HPE / Juniper Networks

   Organization:
      HPE / Juniper Networks

   Implementation Name:
      Junos 18.4R1 and later

   Description:
      Juniper redirect-to-IP feature

   Maturity:
      Widely used.

   Coverage:
      *  Section 2 IPv4 Extended Community - Implemented.

      *  Section 2 IPv6 Extended Community - Not Implemented.



Haas, et al.            Expires 18 November 2026               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft     draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip          May 2026


      *  Section 2 Redirect (C == 0) - Implemented.

      *  Section 2 Copy (C == 1) - Not Implemented.

      *  Section 2.1 Validation - Not Implemented.

      *  Section 2.2 Longest prefix match - Implemented.

      *  Section 2.2 Best path ECMP - Implemented.

      *  Section 2.2 Multiple communities ECMP load sharing -
         Implemented.

      *  Section 2.2 Redirect-to-IP in Redirect-to-VRF - Not
         Implemented.

   Version Compatibility:
      draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip-02

   Licensing:
      Proprietary

   Implementation Experience:

   Contact Information:
      Jeffrey Haas - jhaas@juniper.net

   Last Updated:
      August 2025

A.2.  Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.

   Organization:
      Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.

   Implementation Name:
      VRP V800R019C10 and later

   Description:
      Huawei redirect-to-IP feature

   Maturity:
      Widely used.

   Coverage:
      *  Section 2 IPv4 Extended Community - Implemented.

      *  Section 2 IPv6 Extended Community - Implemented.



Haas, et al.            Expires 18 November 2026               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft     draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip          May 2026


      *  Section 2 Redirect (C == 0) - Implemented.

      *  Section 2 Copy (C == 1) - Not Implemented.

      *  Section 2.1 Validation - Implemented.

      *  Section 2.2 Longest prefix match - Implemented.

      *  Section 2.2 Best path ECMP - Implemented.

      *  Section 2.2 Multiple communities ECMP load sharing - Not
         Implemented.

      *  Section 2.2 Redirect-to-IP in Redirect-to-VRF - Not
         Implemented.

   Version Compatibility:
      draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip-02

   Licensing:
      Proprietary

   Implementation Experience:
      Nothing specific

   Contact Information:
      Shunwan Zhuang - zhuangshunwan@huawei.com

      Ming Shen - shenming2@huawei.com

   Last Updated:
      December 2025

A.3.  Arrcus

   Organization:
      Arrcus

   Implementation Name:
      ArcOS (BGP Flow-Spec with redirect-to-IP)

   Description:
      ArcOS BGP Flow-Spec redirect-to-IPv4 extended community support.

   Maturity:
      In deployment





Haas, et al.            Expires 18 November 2026               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft     draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip          May 2026


   Coverage:
      *  Section 2 IPv4 Extended Community - Implemented.

      *  Section 2 IPv6 Extended Community - Not Implemented.

      *  Section 2 Redirect (C == 0) - Implemented.

      *  Section 2 Copy (C == 1) - Not Implemented.

      *  Section 2.1 Validation - Not Implemented.

      *  Section 2.2 Longest prefix match - Implemented.

      *  Section 2.2 Best path ECMP - Implemented.

      *  Section 2.2 Multiple communities ECMP load sharing - Not
         Implemented.

      *  Section 2.2 Redirect-to-IP in Redirect-to-VRF - Not
         Implemented.

   Version Compatibility:
      draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip-02

   Licensing:
      Proprietary

   Implementation Experience:
      Nothing specific

   Contact Information:
      Suresh Pasupula - sureshp@arrcus.com

   Last Updated:
      February 2026

A.4.  Nokia

   Organization:
      Nokia

   Implementation Name:
      SROS 16.0 and later

   Description:
      BGP Flow-Spec Redirect to IP Support





Haas, et al.            Expires 18 November 2026               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft     draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip          May 2026


   Maturity:
      Widely Used

   Coverage:
      *  Section 2 IPv4 Extended Community - Implemented.

      *  Section 2 IPv6 Extended Community - Implemented.

      *  Section 2 Redirect (C == 0) - Implemented.

      *  Section 2 Copy (C == 1) - Not Implemented.

      *  Section 2.1 Validation - Not Implemented.

      *  Section 2.2 Longest prefix match - Implemented.

      *  Section 2.2 Best path ECMP - Implemented.

      *  Section 2.2 Multiple communities ECMP load sharing - Not
         Implemented.

      *  Section 2.2 Redirect-to-IP in Redirect-to-VRF - Not
         Implemented.

   Version Compatibility:
      draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip-02

   Licensing:
      Proprietary

   Implementation Experience:

   Contact Information:
      Adam Simpson - adam.1.simpson@nokia.com

   Last Updated:
      February 2026

Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Han Nguyen and Robert Raszuk for
   their feedback and suggestions.

   Ines Robles contributed to the quality of this document as part of
   review for the Routing Directorate.

   Linda Dunbar contributed to the quality of this document as part of
   review for the Operations Directorate.



Haas, et al.            Expires 18 November 2026               [Page 15]

Internet-Draft     draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip          May 2026


Contributors

   James Uttaro
   Individual Contributor
   Email: juttaro@ieee.org


   Andy Karch
   Cisco Systems
   170 West Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA 95134
   United States of America
   Email: akarch@cisco.com


   Saikat Ray
   Individual Contributor
   Email: raysaikat@gmail.com


   David Smith
   Cisco
   111 Wood Avenue South
   Iselin, NJ 08830
   United States of America
   Email: djsmith@cisco.com


   Pradosh Mohapatra
   Individual Contributor
   Email: pradosh@google.com


   Matthieu Texier
   Pragma Security
   Email: matthieu@pragma-security.com


Authors' Addresses

   Jeffrey Haas
   HPE
   Email: jeffrey.haas@hpe.com








Haas, et al.            Expires 18 November 2026               [Page 16]

Internet-Draft     draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip          May 2026


   Wim Henderickx
   Nokia
   copernicuslaan 50
   2018 Antwerp
   Belgium
   Email: wim.henderickx@nokia.com


   A. Simpson
   Nokia
   Email: adam.1.simpson@nokia.com








































Haas, et al.            Expires 18 November 2026               [Page 17]
