> On Feb 26, 2026, at 08:21, Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> wrote: > > And that is not so much my preference ... just trying to simplify things > which perhaps only accidentally could get complex. >
An underlying headache of all policy, not just ORFs, is that ordering is important. Even if there's a desire to optimize things that may have apparent unnecessary ordering, when two sets of match criteria can overlap with different actions, the order MUST be clear. For this particular ORF, if the overload bit were not part of the proposal, the match criteria can be arbitrarily ordered internally by the implementation for maximum efficiency without concern. However, that's not the case. Given the currently 5 different match criteria that are defined in the draft, it is trivial to construct examples of overlaps that would result in the routes being impacted by the overload bit differently. Ordering addresses this trivially. Implementations are free to optimize once the ordering is clear. -- Jeff
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
