[Idr] 2 Week WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-rtc-no-rt-00 (5/22 to 6/5)

"Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com> Fri, 22 May 2015 11:41 UTC

From: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
To: idr@ietf.org
Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 07:41:14 -0400
Message-ID: <007c01d09484$35c8a440$a159ecc0$@ndzh.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_007D_01D09462.AEB88AE0"
Thread-Index: AdCUg7a/QPVlrA1nQSKXO1p+bYtSYQ==
Content-Language: en-us
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/TXkTKtgZ1loRhxFbLUJN8XqeFFs>
Subject: [Idr] 2 Week WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-rtc-no-rt-00 (5/22 to 6/5)
Precedence: list

This is a 2 week WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-rtc-no-rt-00.   You can find the
draft at: 

 

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

 

This draft looks to clarify the default setting of the RTC when the extended
community does not carry an RT in the extended communities. 

 

A full description is: 

 

   BGP routes sometimes carry an "Extended Communities" path attribute.

   An Extended Communities path attribute can contain one or more "Route

   Targets" (RTs).  By means of a procedure known as "RT Constrained

   Distribution" (RTC), a BGP speaker can send BGP UPDATE messages that

   express its interest in a particular set of RTs.  Generally, RTC has

   been applied only to address families whose routes always carry RTs.

   When RTC is applied to such an address family, a BGP speaker

   expressing its interest in a particular set of RTs is indicating that

   it wants to receive all and only the routes of that address family

   that have at least one of the RTs of interest.  However, there are

   scenarios in which the originator of a route chooses not to include

   any RTs at all, assuming that the distribution of a route with no RTs

   at all will be unaffected by RTC.  This has led to interoperability

   problems in the field, where the originator of a route assumes that

   RTC will not affect the distribution of the route, but intermediate

   BGP speakers refuse to distribute that route because it does not

   carry any RT of interest.  The purpose of this document is to clarify

   the effect of the RTC mechanism on routes that do not have any RTs.

 

Please comment if this clarification will aid your BGP Deployments, and if
you think this draft is ready for WG LC. 

 

Sue Hares

[Idr] 2 Week WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-rtc-no-rt-0… Susan Hares