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

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

Jie,

In my understanding, this implies two things:
>
>  1) RTC could be enabled on a particular AFI/SAFI;
>

​Yes.​


>  2) RTC processing for different AFI/SAFIs could be different;
>

​No.​



> While currently RTC is a global capability, which cannot be enabled on a
> particular AFI/SAFI only,



​Of course we can - why not ? To send RTs and to process them requires a
command on a per AF basis. ​



> either cannot behave differently for different AFI/SAFIs.


​That was never subject of this discussion. It's completely separate change
which does require changes to base spec.​


So can I infer that you prefer to make RTC a AFI/SAFI specific capability?
>

​That was also never part of this topic.

I would recommend to separate the discussion into specifying ​the default
behavior for routes with no RTs while separately discuss changes to base
RFC to make it per AFI/SAFI (provided there is community support for such
major rewrite).

Best,
R.