Re: [bess] per VRF RD vs per address family RD
"Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com> Thu, 25 July 2019 19:39 UTC
Return-Path: <shares@ndzh.com>
X-Original-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C2A11201CA; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 12:39:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.949
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iO2THMJGtBcf; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 12:39:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hickoryhill-consulting.com (50-245-122-100-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.245.122.100]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1AD3F1201C6; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 12:39:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=forwardok (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=31.133.150.194;
From: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
To: 'Qin Wu' <bill.wu@huawei.com>, bess@ietf.org, draft-ietf-bess-l3vpn-yang.all@ietf.org
References: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABAA883AEA0@nkgeml513-mbs.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABAA883AEA0@nkgeml513-mbs.china.huawei.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 15:39:35 -0400
Message-ID: <00c901d54320$b06d8680$11489380$@ndzh.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00CA_01D542FF.2960A170"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQHzIuWIOzQ2orTiZ82DzMLcgS1ec6af+1eQ
Content-Language: en-us
X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 190725-4, 07/25/2019), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Not-Tested
X-Authenticated-User: skh@ndzh.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/HGOZBQAWDzAQijlQq1nacVOoelc>
Subject: Re: [bess] per VRF RD vs per address family RD
X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list <bess.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bess>, <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bess/>
List-Post: <mailto:bess@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess>, <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 19:39:40 -0000
Qin: Please compare the BESS L3VPN Yang data model with the base BGP model handling of AFI/SAFI. Sue From: BESS [mailto:bess-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Qin Wu Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2019 2:23 PM To: bess@ietf.org; draft-ietf-bess-l3vpn-yang.all@ietf.org Subject: [bess] per VRF RD vs per address family RD Hi, Folks: RFC4659 said: " When a site is IPv4 capable and IPv6 capable, the same RD MAY be used for the advertisement of IPv6 addresses and IPv4 addresses. Alternatively, a different RD MAY be used for the advertisement of the IPv4 addresses and of the IPv6 addresses. " But in BESS L3VPN YANG data model, onely same RD for the advertisement of IPv6 address and IPv4 address is supported, see the following model structure snippet: augment /ni:network-instances/ni:network-instance/ni:ni-type: +--:(l3vpn) +--rw l3vpn +--rw rd? bgp-rd-type +--ro auto-rd? rt-types:route-distinguisher +--rw ipv4 | +--rw unicast | +--rw vpn-targets I am wondering why per address family RD is not supported ,i..e, different RD for advertisment of the IPv4 addresses and of the IPv6 address. If this is something that have been discussed, please point me the link , thanks for clarification. -Qin