BGP Flow-Spec Redirect-to-IP Action
draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip-04

IDR Working Group                                                J. Haas
Internet-Draft                                                       HPE
Intended status: Standards Track                           W. Henderickx
Expires: 6 March 2026                                         A. Simpson
                                                                   Nokia
                                                        2 September 2025

                  BGP Flow-Spec Redirect-to-IP Action
                 draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip-04

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 [RFC8955] 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 draft 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 6 March 2026.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

Haas, et al.              Expires 6 March 2026                  [Page 1]
Internet-Draft     draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip    September 2025

   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
     2.2.  Redirecting Matching Flowspec Traffic . . . . . . . . . .   5
       2.2.1.  Interactions with Redirect to VRF Extended
               Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       2.2.2.  Interactions with Other Flowspec Traffic Filtering
               Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   3.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   4.  Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.1.  HPE / Juniper Networks  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.2.  Cisco IOS-XR  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   6.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     6.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     6.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13

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.

Haas, et al.              Expires 6 March 2026                  [Page 2]
Internet-Draft     draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip    September 2025

   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
   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 draft proposes 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 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 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 6 March 2026                  [Page 3]
Internet-Draft     draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip    September 2025

                      Figure 1 : Local Administrator

                      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

   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.

   BGP speakers that support the extended communities defined in this
   draft MUST also, by default, apply additional validation rules when
   receiving a flow-spec with these extended communities.  More
   specifically, 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 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].

   *  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".

Haas, et al.              Expires 6 March 2026                  [Page 4]
Internet-Draft     draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip    September 2025

   *  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 non-BGP route, 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.

   It MUST be possible to disable these additional validation checks on
   a per-EBGP session basis.

2.2.  Redirecting Matching Flowspec Traffic

   Traffic that is to be redirected/copied for a "redirect-to-IP"
   extended community SHOULD only be redirected if the community type
   matches the traffic type.

   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

Haas, et al.              Expires 6 March 2026                  [Page 5]
Internet-Draft     draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip    September 2025

   encapsulations SHOULD be added to the redirected/copied packets.  If
   the "target address" is invalid or unreachable then the extended
   community SHOULD 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 it SHOULD ignore the extended communities
   with C=0.  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 best and usable paths
   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 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.  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".

Haas, et al.              Expires 6 March 2026                  [Page 6]
Internet-Draft     draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip    September 2025

   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 a
   IP forwarding operation, or results in the matching traffic being
   encapsulated in a tunnel.  This operation will generally short-
   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.

Haas, et al.              Expires 6 March 2026                  [Page 7]
Internet-Draft     draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip    September 2025

   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 [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.

   Redirect to indirection-id (Section 4 of
   [I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect]):
      In general, multiple operations supporting redirection or copying
      SHOULD NOT be present in the same BGP flowspec route.  When both
      redirect-to-ip and redirect to indirection-id are both present on
      the same route, redirect-to-IP SHALL have higher precendence for
      redirection and copying.

   SRv6 Redirect to indirection-id (Section 2 of
   [I-D.ietf0-idr-srv6-flowspec-path-redirect]):
      In general, multiple operations supporting redirection or copying
      SHOULD NOT be present in the same BGP flowspec route.  When both
      redirect-to-ip and SRv6 redirect to indirection-id are both
      present on the same route, redirect-to-IP SHALL have higher
      precendence for redirection and copying.

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 Section 2.1 significantly reduces this risk.

4.  Implementation Status

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

4.1.  HPE / Juniper Networks

   Organization:
      HPE / Juniper Networks

Haas, et al.              Expires 6 March 2026                  [Page 8]
Internet-Draft     draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip    September 2025

   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.

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

      *  Section 2 Copy (C == l) - 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

4.2.  Cisco IOS-XR

   Organization:
      Cisco

Haas, et al.              Expires 6 March 2026                  [Page 9]
Internet-Draft     draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip    September 2025

   Implementation Name:
      Cisco IOS-XR

   Description:

   Maturity:
      Widely used.

   Coverage:
      *  Section 2 IPv4 Extended Community - Not Implemented.

      *  Section 2 IPv6 Extended Community - Not Implemented.

      *  Section 2 Redirect (C == 0) - Not Implemented.

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

      *  Section 2.1 Validation - Not Implemented.

      *  Section 2.2 Longest prefix match - ?.

      *  Section 2.2 Best path ECMP - ?.

      *  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-00

   Licensing:
      Proprietary

   Implementation Experience:

   Contact Information:
      Jakob Heitz

   Last Updated:
      14 October 2024 - IDR mailing list

Haas, et al.              Expires 6 March 2026                 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft     draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip    September 2025

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 shall be "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 shall be "Flow-spec Redirect-to-IPv6".  The
   Reference shall be this document.

   In a previous draft of this document, IANA had allocated an extended
   community from the "BGP Transitive Extended Community Types" registry
   with Type Value 0x08 for "Flow spec redirect/mirror to IP next-hop".
   IANA is requested to deprecate this registration.

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>.

Haas, et al.              Expires 6 March 2026                 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft     draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip    September 2025

   [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>.

   [I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect]
              Van de Velde, G., Patel, K., and Z. Li, "Flowspec
              Indirection-id Redirect", Work in Progress, Internet-
              Draft, draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect-12, 24
              November 2022, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
              draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect-12>.

   [I-D.ietf0-idr-srv6-flowspec-path-redirect]
              Van de Velde, G., Patel, K., Li, Z., and H. Chen,
              "Flowspec Indirection-id Redirect for SRv6", Work in
              Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf0-idr-srv6-flowspec-
              path-redirect-12, 21 October 2024,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf0-idr-
              srv6-flowspec-path-redirect-12>.

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>.

Acknowledgements

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

Contributors

   James Uttaro
   Individual Contributor
   Email: juttaro@ieee.org

Haas, et al.              Expires 6 March 2026                 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft     draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip    September 2025

   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
   1133 Innovation Way
   Sunnyvale, CA 94089
   United States of America
   Email: jhaas@juniper.net

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

Haas, et al.              Expires 6 March 2026                 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft     draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip    September 2025

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

Haas, et al.              Expires 6 March 2026                 [Page 14]