[Idr] 2 week WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-rtc-no-rt

"Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com> Mon, 20 April 2015 20:59 UTC

From: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
To: idr@ietf.org
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 16:58:58 -0400
Message-ID: <01a801d07bac$d4756880$7d603980$@ndzh.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_01A9_01D07B8B.4D654F20"
Thread-Index: AdB7qgBSfoAujn4fTbOJuE6lxY/Vnw==
Content-Language: en-us
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/EOKVZQUq7HwPwYv-iS5UyeMoCSM>
Subject: [Idr] 2 week WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-rtc-no-rt
Precedence: list

 

This begins a 2 week WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-rtc-no-rt (4/20/2015 to
5/4/2015).  You can see the draft at: 

 

http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-rtc-no-rt/

 

Other current drafts for Route Targets in IDR are: 

 

http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-rtc-hierarchical-rr/

http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ipv6-rt-constrain/

 

Appropriate questions for this WG LC are: 

 

1)      Does this default manner handling routes with no RTCs provide good
operational BGP for networks you are aware of? 

2)      Does this method of default work for you: 

 

RTC applied + MDT-SAFI   (SAFI=66) implies routes without RTs are
distributed

                RTC applied + MCAST-VPN (SAFI=6) implies routes without RTs
are distributed

                RTC applied + any other address family - implies routes
without RTs are not distributed

 

Should IANA create a registry which indicates the status of RTC application
or is the draft sufficient: 

 

Other IDR drafts on RT constraints are: 

 

http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-rtc-hierarchical-rr/

http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ipv6-rt-constrain/

 

Please indicate in your message discussing this approach an indication of
"support" or "no support". 

 

Sue Hares

[Idr] 2 week WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-rtc-no-rt Susan Hares