> I do see setting an MPLS label as a characteristic of a next-hop. The > concern will be describing capabilities reasonably without a rat-hole.
As I said transport label yes .. VPN label no. Also how about IP GRE /IPv6 and other encapsulations ? This is prerequisite for any service or application today. > This is doing L3 routing - so VLAN matching seems out; while there may > be PWE3 or L2VPN type use-cases eventually, I've not seen them yet. I think you have missed my point. I am talking about L3. Imagine L3VPN PE ... I want to configure the service using I2RS ... you have had use case for this even presented today. So I must match on the incoming interface (physical or logical) to make sure propor RIB table is used for packet lookup. Best regards, R. _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
