IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Wed, 21 May 2014 16:48 UTC

Return-Path: <rraszuk@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6767E1A070A for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 May 2014 09:48:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.278
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nOF--I6CWXdg for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 May 2014 09:48:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ie0-x22f.google.com (mail-ie0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22f]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 97C331A0834 for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 May 2014 09:48:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ie0-f175.google.com with SMTP id y20so2192555ier.6 for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 May 2014 09:48:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=tFDaV0iblFdibqq/APlAtW/VARMGB2ycwbLekXv49BE=; b=Y9UPlL25i0B58wR7J9C0trxoTsGxQc+a6Vc2rryMnZt1TWQIyomKNtbKhGi0Agzt0x HeDMFKrq0w3C+AistznYuW1WjA7oMCgi1MozSEDH708xOO4DbstPAXuKk6gZTOCvQno/ 89Y37BW1tj5wwCVV4/O/7R14fMVzc964rzizxE1m7y3P0YGjTlY/U4O+pgKTwBPV4cgX 3Mpz4agvyQhCKfFhtXcS7x4NAlmaogPIHhEQNrfXn8H24y0tniWZYLu04uVe5G1xB3MO pWnWrn6quNVEjxLjpHgLQOr2smBylHJnJ2zbVODzLjSlVD/dOQ1MGWhcQMfjmtl+Fjor wyCA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.114.194 with SMTP id ji2mr15176858igb.21.1400690926454; Wed, 21 May 2014 09:48:46 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: rraszuk@gmail.com
Received: by 10.64.242.198 with HTTP; Wed, 21 May 2014 09:48:46 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20140521164629.GJ9789@pfrc>
References: <20140521124753.GC5675@pfrc> <8540.1400685704@erosen-lnx> <CA+b+ERnwBqV8zgeSju_KiMEw_mnfOca8ZSiAuzMZt_U=Dd-r+g@mail.gmail.com> <20140521163621.GF9789@pfrc> <CA+b+ER=JoyPF9wFnFPUOA+4edJNshEjmv2OJY8tcM7KCaNQwSw@mail.gmail.com> <20140521164629.GJ9789@pfrc>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 18:48:46 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: XY1Ndp1xS5qhmRQfJyKXp6JtFRg
Message-ID: <CA+b+ERmhKJDn-zrMx2-WWoOD4P4DH1tb1c4SzGbzoAmM9tmzgA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/jvl1JIrPnI4L9IdsyXAeP6FBXuA
Cc: idr wg <idr@ietf.org>, "erosen@cisco.com" <erosen@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Idr] RFC 4684 pedantry - routes with no Route Target
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 16:48:48 -0000

Well I like Yakov's suggestion.

Default was just an example - however his proposal behavior matches
(at least mine) expectation :)

So perhaps we should amend RFC4684 with NULL RT entry and encode it
somehow different then DEFAULT RT entry.

r.

On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> wrote:
> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 06:38:49PM +0200, Robert Raszuk wrote:
>> > 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.)
>>
>> After timeout yes, but not after valid set of RTC RT NLRIs followed by
>> EOR. .. I would not expect to see those in the latter case.
>
> I believe that's the point of contention.  Should we be applying filters
> when there's nothing to match on?
>
> To echo a point Yakov raised in a side chat, what this would mean
> protocol-wise would be a NULL RT-C entry.  This is distinct from a default
> which is a "match all".
>
> -- Jeff

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email