Re: [Idr] draft-dong-idr-node-target-ext-comm-05.txt - WG Adoption and IPR call (9/27 to 10/11/2022) - Extended an Additional week to 10/18/2022

["Dongjie (Jimmy)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jeff and Robert,

Thanks for this discussion. Please see my clarification inline.

From: Idr [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Haas
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2022 6:13 AM
To: Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>
Cc: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzhang=[e-mail]>; Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.dong=[e-mail]>; Sue Hares <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-dong-idr-node-target-ext-comm-05.txt - WG Adoption and IPR call (9/27 to 10/11/2022) - Extended an Additional week to 10/18/2022

Robert,



On Oct 19, 2022, at 6:02 PM, Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

Jeff,

On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 11:53 PM Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Jeffrey,


On Oct 18, 2022, at 11:05 PM, Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzhang=[e-mail]<mailto:zzhang=[e-mail]>> wrote:

The red text is not correct. RFC 6514 already used <address:0> RT to target routes to a node, and as you say in the purple text the RT mechanism can be extended to non-VPN.


It's my understanding that the RFC 6514 VRF Route Import Extended Community is, as labeled, for VRF scope.

The proposal here is that this is node scoped, and thus addressed toward a node by its BGP Identifer (router-id).



The way I understand it by reading Jie's use case that this VRF scoped too. It could be nodes scoped and VRF scoped.

My understanding was that this was a logical AND case in such circumstances.  Thus, a specific node for a specific VPN and would have route targets in addition to the node-target.

Jie will hopefully clarify here.

[Jie] The intent of this proposal is node scoped. As Jeff clearly mentioned, there can be a logical AND between NT and RT. Thus in order to important routes to a specific VRF on a target node,  the route is attached with NT for the target node, AND RT for the VRF.

Hope this helps.

Best regards,
Jie

-- Jeff