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

[Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]>]

Robert,

On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 10:51:50PM +0200, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> > - Permit a per-peer, per-AFI/SAFI knob to enable/disable RT-C processing.
> > - Provide for exceptions to the rule and document them.
> 
> I think all implementations of RTC I looked at do both of those
> already (modulo your definition of "RT-C processing").

That second point, for MDT, is what prompted the whole conversation in the
first place.  JUNOS and another vendor weren't interoperating when RT-C was
enabled.  If we read the RT-C spec as "no RT, then route is filtered out",
the other vendor is non-conformant.  The fact that the MDT spec said that
RTs are optional is mostly the fact that the feature wasn't reconciled
against RT-C's filtering behavior.

> You are nowhere mentioning the need for NULL-RT encoding which sort of
> leads me to guess that you want this to be a static config on both
> ends per peer/per safi. Is this what the hidden context is ?
> 
> If so I would be actually fine with that too. Just let's spell it out
> for clarity.

That's what I'm suggesting.  The idea of a NULL-RT-C isn't something I'm a
fan of.

If the above gains consensus, I'm not sure there's anything to be put in an
I-D.  If there is, it's "RT-C procedures may be disabled on an AFI/SAFI that
is provisioned to use it on a per-route basis when that route does not
contain a RT.  This is currently recommended for ..."

Personally, I'm at my quota for small janitorial RFCs for the moment.
Maybe once one of my current ones hit RFC I'll volunteer. :-)

-- Jeff