IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> Wed, 19 October 2022 22:13 UTC

Return-Path: <jhaas@pfrc.org>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32281C14F737 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Oct 2022 15:13:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1V2xPviz_pWa for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Oct 2022 15:12:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D4ADC1524C2 for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Oct 2022 15:12:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (99-59-193-67.lightspeed.livnmi.sbcglobal.net [99.59.193.67]) by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 534911E039; Wed, 19 Oct 2022 18:12:44 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_7BBFA39B-927D-434D-ABF0-C87E78FADD73"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.120.41.1.1\))
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAOj+MMFJJVUOjX0bUkyMrJO=DGWKYV8Xstc=DOYcgUH8pHfiDg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2022 18:12:43 -0400
Cc: "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <zzhang=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, "Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.dong=40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Sue Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <89C5EAA7-F13D-48DA-81CD-D55C40482E1F@pfrc.org>
References: <BYAPR08MB4872FFB2ED1C82409C861369B3229@BYAPR08MB4872.namprd08.prod.outlook.com> <BL0PR05MB565229580BB9F0011090EF11D4289@BL0PR05MB5652.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <2f4ca371565d4be1a4a20b15b97cd9a1@huawei.com> <BL0PR05MB5652697A256A6E212FA37BC3D42B9@BL0PR05MB5652.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <80D68AF7-5826-4459-80B5-3673C72730E2@pfrc.org> <CAOj+MMFJJVUOjX0bUkyMrJO=DGWKYV8Xstc=DOYcgUH8pHfiDg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.120.41.1.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/k53dCCMjSpvHvPz9L6prqDuFFj8>
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
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 19 Oct 2022 22:13:02 -0000

Robert,


> On Oct 19, 2022, at 6:02 PM, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> wrote:
> 
> Jeff, 
> 
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 11:53 PM Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org <mailto:jhaas@pfrc.org>> wrote:
> Jeffrey,
> 
>> On Oct 18, 2022, at 11:05 PM, Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzhang=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org <mailto:zzhang=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>> 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.

-- Jeff

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email