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

[Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]>]

Robert,

On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 06:20:58PM +0200, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> Remember that RFC 4684 enforces for any SAFI it is enabled under no
> route exchange happens at all till intersecting RTs are received over
> RTC SAFI.
> 
> That means that the spec is 180 degrees opposite to your above claim
> that routes with no RTs should be always exchanged.

While a complicating factor certainly, we'd still end up sending along those
routes after either end-of-rib for RT-C or the timeout.  (Presuming the
implementation follows the SHOULD.)

So, while it causes potential delay to the subset of the routes carrying no
RT, presumably they're in the same family because some of the routes will
have an RT and want to benefit from the feature.

-- Jeff