Re: [Idr] RFC 4684 pedantry - routes with no Route Target

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

I meant that you do not execute the match of the default entry for
routes which contain RT AND RTC send anything more specific then
default RT.

But NULL RT idea is much more elegant and does not require any of the
above twicks.

R.

On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 6:50 PM, Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 06:40:53PM +0200, Robert Raszuk wrote:
>> > Default RT-C effectively negates the usefulness of the feature.  I wouldn't
>> > recommend this.
>>
>> It all depends how you implement your filters :)
>
> I'm not clear how this could be the case, even at a protocol abstraction
> level.  Since RT-C entries are effectively longest match on RT (although I
> know there's a push to change that behavior as part of the IPv6 work), for
> any set of RT-Cs including default, any route containing an RT will match
> default.  You're thus not constraining much at all.
>
> Modulo policy limiting the distribution of default in your network, of
> course.  But I'm talking about on a single router.
>
> -- Jeff