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

[Robert Raszuk <raszuk at cisco.com>]

Mach,

You are correct that RFC4684 does not support this new RT as proposed by 
draft-ietf-l3vpn-v6-ext-communities-02. RFC4684 supports what BGP VPN 
defined by RFC 4364 or any other VPN specification which uses Route 
Target ext community attribute. That is all what is sufficient to be 
supported.

If we are discussing in particular RFC 4364 it's _normative_ reference 
explicitly states that Route Target ext community for all possible 
applications must be supported as defined in RFC 4360.

So first I recommend to wait for new version of RFC4364 with new 
normative reference section which would potentially refer to RFC XYZ 
which could be perhaps created one day by progressing 
draft-ietf-l3vpn-v6-ext-communities further.

At this point draft-ietf-l3vpn-v6-ext-communities is not applicable to 
RFC 4364 or any other VPN specification I am aware of.

In fact I do not know what draft-ietf-l3vpn-v6-ext-communities is 
applicable for. Perhaps it's author could clarify this on this list.

Cheers,
R.


> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr