Hi Robert,
Usage of RTs in RFC4364 is very clear. It has been deployed for over 9 years and AFAIK the flexibility RFC4364 leaves as far as RT assignment did not generated any confusion, but allowed different VPN topologies to be build without spelling out each one in the spec.
If there is no RT-constrain, yes,there will be no any confusion, because the RT space for different AFI/SAFI is actually seperated. The operator could assign RTs freely for a specific VPN without considering(and IMHO, it SHOULD NOT) any other type of VPNs. Otherwise, when configure L3VPN, if you have to consider the underlying confilicts with other type of VPNs, for me, that will be an annoying thing.
Best regards, Mach
Nonetheless, you have brought up a good point that deserves further clarity about different SAFIs per VRF wrt RFC4364, at minimum.I think it's worthwhile to pursue a bis on 4364 to clarify the usage of the RT to avoid the problem described--although I also think it's pretty much "common sense" to avoid it in the design and operation stages. I don't think we need to change make RT constrain as contained in the presented draft, as this would likely just add more confusion, and probably wouldn't be deployed in the real world, because of the additional configuration overhead involved. Russ_______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr at ietf.orghttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr