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

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

Hi Jeff, 

> This suggests the behavior we want may be:
> - Permit a per-peer, per-AFI/SAFI knob to enable/disable RT-C processing.
>   JUNOS, e.g., filters VPN families by default.

Agree that this way we can solve some problem without modifying the RTC protocol, a.k.a backward compatibility is maintained.

> - Provide for exceptions to the rule and document them.
> That second point covers the MDT scenario.  It also suggests that IDR should
> probably make sure the other WGs using BGP as a transport for their VPNs or
> otherwise using RTs should be reminded that RT-C exists and their extensions
> had best document their interaction with it if they inconsistently RT tag their
> routes.

Fully agree that for different VPNs which may use RTC, the possible interaction and extensions should be documented somewhere. Then RFC 4684 may need to be updated by many newly defined VPN specifications.

This reminds me of the MP-BGP (RFC 4760), which keeps stable while can support lots of new VPNs. I'm thinking whether we should make RTC a scalable and stable mechanism in a similar way.

Thoughts?

Best regards,
Jie