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

[Mach Chen <mach at huawei.com>]

Hi Robert,

IPv6 address specified RT (length of 20 bytes) is defined in 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l3vpn-v6-ext-communities-02, and RFC 
4684 does not support this new RT.

Best regards,
Mach

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Robert Raszuk" <raszuk at cisco.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 1:31 PM
To: "Mach Chen" <mach at huawei.com>
Cc: <idr at ietf.org>; "Dong Jie" <dongjie_dj at huawei.com>
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.