IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idr] Response to comments on generalized RT constrain solution

Mach Chen <mach@huawei.com> Wed, 11 November 2009 06:15 UTC

Return-Path: <mach@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: idr@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0A2428C2B5 for <idr@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:15:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.600, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wD7WLUv39AhP for <idr@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:15:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhrga01-in.huawei.com (lhrga01-in.huawei.com [195.33.106.110]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3350728C0F7 for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:15:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrml01-in [172.18.7.5]) by lhrga01-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0KSX003JOLES9Y@lhrga01-in.huawei.com> for idr@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Nov 2009 06:16:04 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LENOVOmach (host-18-200.meeting.ietf.org [133.93.18.200]) by lhrga01-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0KSX00JWFLEM0C@lhrga01-in.huawei.com> for idr@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Nov 2009 06:16:02 +0000 (GMT)
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 14:16:05 +0800
From: Mach Chen <mach@huawei.com>
In-reply-to: <4AFA4C20.40604@cisco.com>
To: raszuk@cisco.com
Message-id: <3093148F4C884E249316B2EBC9CE9E18@LENOVOmach>
Organization: Huawei
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8089.726
X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8089.726
Content-type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type="response"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Importance: Normal
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-priority: Normal
References: <06c501ca61c7$0d8c86e0$1200a8c0@china.huawei.com> <4AF90CAA.3030700@cisco.com> <B7F7EAEBC2FF434CB95EC8E380EC45F7@LENOVOmach> <4AFA4C20.40604@cisco.com>
Cc: idr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Idr] Response to comments on generalized RT constrain solution
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Mach Chen <mach@huawei.com>
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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, 11 Nov 2009 06:15:40 -0000

Hi Robert,

IPv6 address specified RT (length of 20 bytes) is defined in 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l3vpn-v6-ext-communities-02, and RFC 
4684 does not support this new RT.

Best regards,
Mach

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Robert Raszuk" <raszuk@cisco.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 1:31 PM
To: "Mach Chen" <mach@huawei.com>
Cc: <idr@ietf.org>; "Dong Jie" <dongjie_dj@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Response to comments on generalized RT constrain solution

>
>>> > 3. BTW, there is another issue regarding to the length of the RT
>>> > filed, the IPv6 address specified RT is covered in rfc4684.
>>>
>>> Can you clarify what is the issue ?
>>
>> Here is the RT difinition in RFC4684:
>> +-------------------------------+
>> | origin as        (4 octets)   |
>> +-------------------------------+
>> | route target     (8 octets)   |
>> +                               +
>> |                               |
>> +-------------------------------+
>>
>> There is only 8 octets left for route target.
>
> Why do you need more ? RFC4360 is quite clear on route target format and 
> it is 8 octets.
>
> RFC4684 just talks about IPv4 or IPv6 next hops to be used as part of 
> MP_REACH_NLRI. That has nothing to do with different RT format.
>
> Cheers,
> R.
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email