On the matching, I was specifically talking about matching on VLAN; of course, if a VLAN defines an L3 interface that feeds into a particular RIB specific to that interface, that is - to my mind/abstractions - different from matching on a VLAN tag.
YES - the results might be similar, but less generality. Alia On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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
