Re: [Idr] Response to comments on generalized RT constrain solution
"Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com> Wed, 11 November 2009 06:09 UTC
Return-Path: <rajiva@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: idr@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92B5B28C2B4 for <idr@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:09:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AGI7qw3B90yK for <idr@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:09:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com (rtp-iport-1.cisco.com [64.102.122.148]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B4A33A6853 for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:08:39 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: rtp-iport-1.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApoEAI/j+UpAZnwN/2dsb2JhbADEaZhIhDwEgWs
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.44,721,1249257600"; d="scan'208";a="67368788"
Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com ([64.102.124.13]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 11 Nov 2009 06:09:06 +0000
Received: from xbh-rcd-102.cisco.com ([72.163.62.190]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nAB696iD014462; Wed, 11 Nov 2009 06:09:06 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-111.cisco.com ([72.163.62.153]) by xbh-rcd-102.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 11 Nov 2009 00:09:06 -0600
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 00:09:03 -0600
Message-ID: <067E6CE33034954AAC05C9EC85E2577C197CAA@XMB-RCD-111.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4AFA4C20.40604@cisco.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Idr] Response to comments on generalized RT constrain solution
Thread-Index: AcpikDNEU4IAr0rwSBmk6Dk9rzuxLAABLUzw
References: <06c501ca61c7$0d8c86e0$1200a8c0@china.huawei.com><4AF90CAA.3030700@cisco.com><B7F7EAEBC2FF434CB95EC8E380EC45F7@LENOVOmach> <4AFA4C20.40604@cisco.com>
From: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com>
To: "Robert Raszuk (raszuk)" <raszuk@cisco.com>, Mach Chen <mach@huawei.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Nov 2009 06:09:06.0401 (UTC) FILETIME=[79A55D10:01CA6295]
Cc: idr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Idr] Response to comments on generalized RT constrain solution
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 06:09:25 -0000
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@ietf.org [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Robert > Raszuk (raszuk) > Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 12:31 AM > To: Mach Chen > Cc: idr@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@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
- Re: [Idr] Response to comments on generalized RT … Robert Raszuk
- [Idr] Response to comments on generalized RT cons… Jie Dong
- Re: [Idr] Response to comments on generalized RT … Mach Chen
- Re: [Idr] Response to comments on generalized RT … Pedro Marques (roque)
- Re: [Idr] Response to comments on generalized RT … Jie Dong
- Re: [Idr] Response to comments on generalized RT … Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] Response to comments on generalized RT … Mach Chen
- Re: [Idr] Response to comments on generalized RT … Jie Dong
- Re: [Idr] Response to comments on generalized RT … Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] Response to comments on generalized RT … Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] Response to comments on generalized RT … Rajiv Asati (rajiva)
- Re: [Idr] Response to comments on generalized RT … Rajiv Asati (rajiva)
- Re: [Idr] Response to comments on generalized RT … Rajiv Asati (rajiva)
- Re: [Idr] Response to comments on generalized RT … Mach Chen
- Re: [Idr] Response to comments on generalized RT … Mach Chen
- Re: [Idr] Response to comments on generalized RT … Jie Dong
- Re: [Idr] Response to comments on generalized RT … Rajiv Asati (rajiva)
- Re: [Idr] Response to comments on generalized RT … Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] Response to comments on generalized RT … Jie Dong
- Re: [Idr] Response to comments on generalized RT … Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] Response to comments on generalized RT … Russ White
- Re: [Idr] Response to comments on generalized RT … Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] Response to comments on generalized RT … Mach Chen
- Re: [Idr] Response to comments on generalized RT … Pedro Marques (roque)
- Re: [Idr] Response to comments on generalized RT … Mach Chen
- Re: [Idr] Response to comments on generalized RT … Mike Benjamin
- Re: [Idr] Response to comments on generalized RT … Deng, Guan
- Re: [Idr] Response to comments on generalized RT … Jie Dong