Re: [Idr] Response to comments on generalized RT constrain solution

["Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva at cisco.com>]

If the RT is specified using 'draft-ietf-l3vpn-v6-ext-communities' (20
octets), then how would it fit in the RT definition of RFC4684 (8
octets)? 

Not sure if this is what Mach is alluding to, but I do see this as an
issue.

Cheers,
Rajiv

> -----Original Message-----
> From: idr-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:idr-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Robert
> Raszuk (raszuk)
> Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 12:31 AM
> To: Mach Chen
> Cc: idr at ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Idr] Response to comments on generalized RT constrain
solution
> 
> 
> >> > 3. BTW, there is another issue regarding to the length of the RT
> >> > filed, the IPv6 address specified RT is covered in rfc4684.
> >>
> >> Can you clarify what is the issue ?
> >
> > Here is the RT difinition in RFC4684:
> > +-------------------------------+
> > | origin as        (4 octets)   |
> > +-------------------------------+
> > | route target     (8 octets)   |
> > +                               +
> > |                               |
> > +-------------------------------+
> >
> > There is only 8 octets left for route target.
> 
> Why do you need more ? RFC4360 is quite clear on route target format
and
> it is 8 octets.
> 
> RFC4684 just talks about IPv4 or IPv6 next hops to be used as part of
> MP_REACH_NLRI. That has nothing to do with different RT format.
> 
> Cheers,
> R.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr