[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Idr] Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-pmohapat-idr-acceptown-community-01.txt
- To: "Jeffrey Haas" <jhaas at pfrc.org>, "John G. Scudder" <jgs at juniper.net>
- Subject: Re: [Idr] Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-pmohapat-idr-acceptown-community-01.txt
- From: "Jim Guichard (jguichar)" <jguichar at cisco.com>
- Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 14:07:09 -0400
- Authentication-results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=jguichar at cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; );
- Cc: idr at ietf.org, "LONGHITANO, ANTHONY C, ATTLABS" <aclonghitano at att.com>, "RAMSAROOP, JEEWAN P, ATTLABS" <jramsaroop at att.com>, "NGUYEN, HAN Q, ATTLABS" <hnguyen at att.com>
- Delivered-to: ietfarch-idr-web-archive at core3.amsl.com
- Delivered-to: idr at core3.amsl.com
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1374; t=1210097231; x=1210961231; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=jguichar at cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Jim=20Guichard=20(jguichar)=22=20<jguichar at cisc o.com> |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[Idr]=20Fwd=3A=20I-D=20ACTION=3Adraft-p mohapat-idr-acceptown-community-01.txt |Sender:=20 |To:=20=22Jeffrey=20Haas=22=20<jhaas at pfrc.org>,=20=22John=2 0G.=20Scudder=22=20<jgs at juniper.net>; bh=LR0zF8swMq+ih07HXv2z+2Wf910jMrjxtWHo6om7F0s=; b=qaXWceYZ2iHoNXIlCiezCduTIGfTMPSDVbpT2g2MyFaO10KizstZO85FKd IeMxMaZw9zB6dnvvw29mLr4nombYuYiZIEkB/EW/idEhoYmFO95KwX0H/cMy KDi9NFjHY8;
- In-reply-to: <20080506180029.GA26405@scc.mi.org>
- List-archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/idr>
- List-help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
- List-id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
- List-post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
- List-subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
- Sender: idr-bounces at ietf.org
- Thread-index: Acivox4TaTD37VIdRUi9hkrFK7DLlQAAFf1g
- Thread-topic: [Idr] Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-pmohapat-idr-acceptown-community-01.txt
> Typical VRF configuration is import-route-target A and
> export-route-target B. If A == B for some A and B in the extended
> community set they're in the same VPN.
I would say that the typical VRF configuration is
import-route-target/export-route-target are the same value.
>
> I'm curious as to the configuration of the route targets that would
> require this to be done. I hadn't thought about the case where the RR
> is actively manipulating the route-targets. If the goal is to stitch
> together a single set of VRFs, you have the additional problem of
> needing to constrain where the route is reflected.
Lets say VPN-a uses RT 100:1 and VPN-b uses RT 100:2. In order to create
an extranet you need to import RT 100:2 into VPN-a and RT 100:1 into
VPN-b. This is an additional import statement. However, if you change
the VPN-b route RT values at the RR then VPN-a can import based on RT
100:1.
>
> If it's across multiple PEs, this implies something along the lines of
> RT A and RT B are distinct on a per VRF basis. This seems somewhat
> unlikely (at least on the completely distinct basis) since it wouldn't
> scale well for many VRFs being in the same VPN.
It is 100% likely and indeed necessary should you want different VPNs.
>
> Could you clarify on the likely setup for this feature?
>
> -- Jeff
_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
Idr at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr